On the Origins of the Mystery of Repentance

Sub-Dn. Lazarus Der-Ghazarian

A. The development of Public Penance

In the primitive Church “there was no single official or sacramental form of ecclesial penance” (The Reconciling Community, Dallen, 3). The Sacrament of Repentance (or Penance) developed slowly over the first six centuries through the various crisis and controversies the Church underwent. In the first few centuries “any repentance beyond baptism was regarded as exceptional.” Yet by the late second century it was recognized that a more regular form for reconciling sinners was needed. In the third century while enduring persecution from without and turmoil within, the Church came to establish an institutionalized form of post-baptismal penance. In the fourth and fifth century this received canonical structure and form as the Church worked to accommodate the unprecedented number of catechumens (Dallen, 3).

In the New Testament the Sacrament of Penance began with the recognition that Christ had entrusted to his Church the power to forgive sins. St. Peter told the citizens of Jerusalem to “repent… for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38). St. Paul taught that reconciliation had been entrusted to the Church (2 Cor 5:18-20). The Church had power to set people free from sin (Mt. 9:8, 16:15-16; Jn 20:21-23). The Church forgave sins and welcomed repentant sinners back into their gatherings (Lk 24:47-48). As Dallen writes, ‘Theirs were reconciling communities, communities of salvation where old lines of demarcation had been erased” (cf. Gal 3:27-28, Dallen, 6). In Matthew (16:19, 18:18) and John (20:23) we have “clear affirmations that the Christian ekklesia is God’s gathering of a community of salvation, an individuals’ response to that community affects his situation before God, and that the community and its officials have authority over sin and can set down conditions for membership” (Dallen, 13).

This forgiveness through the Church was tied to the concept of binding and loosing which, Dallen explains, “indicated the authority to determine what was permissible and what was not, of imposing obligations and of removing them, and, in extreme cases, of banishing from the community and of recalling those who had been banished” (Dallen, 14). Sinners entered the Church via baptism and it was through baptism that the Church first exercised her power over sin. This connection between baptism and penance became more evident as the latter sacrament developed. In the primitive Church, sin after Baptism was unthinkable (Rom 6:2), yet it existed. Thus the Church had to discern, based on the teachings of our Lord and His apostles, how to handle its “sinful saints” (Dallen, 6).

In some cases the primitive Church exercised its power over sin through the efficacy of prayer (Mt. 18:19-20, Dallen, 8). But in extreme cases of sin “unto death” (1 Jn 5:16-17), the evildoer was to be purged from the community. This expulsion was meant to be more medicinal than punitive. It was not meant for the sinner’s destruction but rather that his “spirit may be saved” (1 Cor 5:4-12). “Thus, Paul advises the community to receive back with tangible signs of affection, a repentant individual who had been ostracized (2 Cor 2:5-11, Dallen, 11). The assembled community had the right to make such a decision (1 Cor 5:10-11, Mt 18:17) and if the sinner would not listen “even to the Church” he was to be shunned completely and “handed over to Satan” (1 Cor 5:5, 1 Tim 1:20). The faithful were not even to associate or eat with those who had been shunned. This perhaps was a reference to broken eucharistic communion (cf. 2 Thes 3:6,14 & 1 Cor 5:11). The Church had to balance our Lord’s merciful forgiveness (Jn 8:7) with His call for His Church to be a sign of holiness to the pagan world (Mt 5:13-16, Dallen, 8).

The “kiss of peace” or “holy kiss” also became a recognized liturgical gesture of mutual forgiveness and restored communion (Dallen, 11). It was “a sign that the repentant sinner was received back into the community and admitted to its assemblies and meals” (Dallen, 12). Dallen notes that this ritual gesture could indeed have been the beginning of the ritual of the sacrament of reconciliation (Dallen, 12). The New Testament makes reference to communal penance (Jas 5:16) and this continued practice of the early Church is clearly manifest in the texts of early Eucharistic liturgies (Didache 14:1, 4:14, cf. 1 Cor 11:28-31, the liturgies of Addai and Mari, Dallen, 9). The early use of prayers borrowed from the synagogues developed into “elaborate liturgies” designed to reconcile and rehabilitate sinners to the Church (Dallen, 24).

By the middle of the 2nd century baptized infants rather than adult converts became the norm for new membership and the problem of what to do with post baptismal sins came to the foreground (Dallen, 24). At first the assembly itself was the primary administer of forgiveness but by the mid-third century the presider’s role in the administration of the Christ’s forgiveness through the Church became increasingly prominent (Dallen, 23). By Tertullian’s day (late 2nd century) the bishop oversaw the entire process as well as the final decision to reconcile the sinner (Dallen, 35). Yet in emergencies of life and death, presbyters and even deacons could hear confessions and offer absolution (Dallen, 42). Dallen explains why in the early Church confession of sin was public, “Since sin was social and ecclesial, repentance too was social and public and had to be externally manifested long enough for the Church to offer guidance and formation and for the penitent to show reformation and disengagement from sinful ways” (Dallen, 37).

B. The Transition leading to Private Penance

In the 3rd century, a dissension arose between those who wished to handle sinners with severity and those who preferred to treat them more compassionately. They disagreed on who to receive back into the community and under what conditions to do so. Some even went so far as to insist that certain sinners were beyond re-admission to the community. The distinction between grave and lesser sins was expressed as early as St. John’s First Epistle (5:16-17). The grave sins were generally recognized as the triad of apostasy, murder and adultery (cf. Acts 15:29). Dallen writes, “A new problem was posed, for post-baptismal repentance was no longer so easily regarded as a reversal of commitment and hence exception. Both a theory and a practice for disciplining lax Christians and apostates were called for” (Dallen, 22). This controversy “set the stage for development” (Dallen, 24). Thus the primitive practice of mutual correction gave way to rules requiring strict, supervised probation for those whose sins had injured themselves or the community.

From the group of rigorists came those known as the “carthari” (or puritans) who were influenced by the teachings of Tertullian and the heresy of Montanism. In the third century they were especially dominant in the North African province of Carthage and in Rome. Theirs’ was a movement of protest against laxity in the Church and they were eventually lead into formal schism by Novatian (lasting well into the seventh century). The disagreement was over the question of those who had lapsed in faith (known as the “lapsi”) during the Decian persecutions. Those of the rigorist party, following the view of the Montanists, denied the Church’s ability to forgive the gravest sins, while others allowed that penance could be undergone only once (Dallen, 33). To the moderate party, the rigorist‘s position was not only a lack of compassion but also a lack of faith in the power which Christ granted to His Church to forgive sins. It was St. Cyprian who defended what came to be recognized as the faith of the Church, arguing that forgiveness and reconciliation are possible for all repentant sinners through the power Christ gave to His Church (Dallen, 33).

The Greek name exomologesis had been given by Tertullian to the developing rite of repentance. It was seen first as a confession of faith in God’s greatness and majesty, then as a recognition of His great mercy for sinners and only then a confession of sins. It presupposed internal conversion and was accompanied by outward penitential signs as wearing penitential garb and begging the community to pray for their pardon and peace (Dallen, 36-7). As St. Cyprian wrote, “The penitent does not obtain forgiveness simply thorough penitential acts nor does the bishop forgive sins directly. The whole process manifests reconciliation with God achieved in solidarity with the Church. Penitential deeds express the penitent‘s reattachment to the Church as the spirit of evil overcome, and reconciliation is the grant of communion with the Church as the Holy Spirit is given” (Dallen, 41).

This order of penitents “confessed sinfulness and promised reform… then, after episcopal exhortations and community intercession, they were ceremonially expelled to begin a period of penance. In many areas… the Church ministered to the penitents each Sunday as it did to catechumens through special prayers, blessings and the laying on of hands (Dallen, 47). Often they were dismissed during the Divine Liturgy just before the start of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. To this day the Armenian Divine Liturgy retains references to this practice as the deacon states, “Let none of the catechumens… none of the penitents… draw near to this Divine Mystery” (cf. Dallen, 71). Also, during the Anaphora, the deacon cries aloud “the doors, the doors” reminding all that the catechumens and penitents should be outside of the Holy Sacrifice. This is one demonstration of the connection between baptism and penance: they both serve as preparations for participation in the Holy Eucharist.

The advantage of having a public form of confession was that it served as a warning of the seriousness of sin and the holiness to which all Christians are called. On the other hand, public confession often discouraged repentance for fear of stigmatization or extreme difficulty involved in being enrolled in the an order of penitents (Dallen, 76). As Dallen writes, “The outdated system served more to induce guilt than to reduce it, for it gave the impression that those unwilling to enter penance were left in their sin” (Dallen, 78). Something more was needed.

C. The Origins of Private Confession

In the Eastern Church, exomologesis (confession) continued to develop along with the idea of metanoia (conversion). In the East, the Church’s ministers were viewed more as spiritual physicians than judges. As a form of spiritual direction through an examination of conscience, people (especially monastics) began to confess their sins to pastors or spiritual guides. Private spiritual direction involved seeking the counsel of Church officials or holy individuals who would be able to help others to be healed of their sins and reconciled with the Church. It allowed individuals the opportunity to reveal their personal lives to directors and gain insight into how to live more closely to Christ (Dallen, 45). Though forgiveness came through penance, it was understood that healing came from living a penitential life and the spiritual director guided the faithful on how to live this life (Dallen, 46). The great advantage of private confession was that it eliminated the shame and embarrassment involved in public confession. On the other hand private confession lacked the communal aspect so prevalent in the early Church and the benefit of having the entire Church pray for the repentant person’s rehabilitation was lost (Dallen, 71). As Dallen writes, “Penance’s communal foundation was weakened as both sin and repentance were progressively individualized and privatized” (Dallen, 73). Penance became a matter of abstract doctrine rather than that of felt experience based on the penitent’s relationship with the community (Dallen, 74). Another concern that led to the privitization of pennace was that “to call to task serious sinners not publicly known as such could subject them to punishment by the civil authorities, revenge, or social ostracism” (Dallen, 76).

D. Connections of Penance with Baptism and the Eucharist

In the New Testament, “reaffirming the repentance or conversion that had first led the person to baptism was the path to reconciliation with the community and restoration to the salvation that it signaled” (Dallen, 11). Penance came to fulfill the need for a “second Baptism.” Whereas Baptism was unrepeatable, the Mystery of Repentance came to be repeated as often as needed to reconcile the repentant back to the community. Because of the threat of Roman persecution the Church had to be very careful of whom to allow into its membership and whom to allow back after proving to be untrustworthy (Dallen, 29). Thus the Church’s catechumen formation closely paralleled its formation of sacramental penance and she used the same power given her by God to reconcile both groups. Later, “as baptism ceased to be the sacrament of adult conversion and faith, penance began to replace it...” (Dallen, 65). Thus even the focus of the Great Fast eventually shifted from the preparation of catechumens to spiritual penance and preparation of the faithful (Dallen, 65).

Baptism and penance also have a connection to the Holy Eucharist. Both serve as a means of bringing those outside the Church into full communion with Christ’s Body. Holy Communion is the accomplishment and assurance of this union. But before one can participate in the Bread of Life one must be reconciled to Christ. This is accomplished for the non-baptized through baptism and for the baptized who have succumbed to sin, by confession. But it is also important to note that Holy Communion itself conveys forgiveness of sins to those who worthily participate in it. “Reconciliation was often granted simply by giving the eucharist” (Dallen, 79). As a sign of the power of Holy Communion to convey forgiveness viaticum was given to gravely ill youth without a need for penance or reconciliation (Dallen, 79). Penance has also always been linked with the Holy Eucharist through the disciplinary action of excommunication as a medicinal way of reconciling sinners and protecting them from unworthily receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:27-32).

E. Modern experiences and examples

Today Armenians abstain from Holy Communion for the entire duration of the Great Fast. Although it is generally not thought of, this harkens back to a practice of the ancient Church and could have great meaning as the faithful assume the posture of the penitents and work corporately for repentance and conversion. Dallen explains the symbolism of this practice, “In fifth century Rome, the whole Church relived its baptismal conversion during Lent and it was in the penitent milieu, focused on baptism, that the penitents returned to God… through the assembled Body of Christ to call them back and support them in the return” (Dallen, 70).

Unfortunately today the Armenian Church has lost the practice of private confession. As a result public, general confession has become its sole practice and is almost meaningless, having little or no spiritual impact or personal accountability. Dallen summarizes such a phenomenon stating that “receiving penance as a ritual act became increasingly more common than doing penance as a conversion process,” it has become, “a thing given by the clergy rather than a reality lived by the faithful” (Dallen, 82).

Today the word “penance” itself has lost its original meaning to become synonymous with, difficulty, sacrifice, and penalty“ (Dallen, 87). The concept of conversion (metanoia) coupled with confession (exomologesis) needs recovery. Penance in today’s Church retains its connection with baptism in that they both precede reception of Holy Communion and thus continue to serve as preparatory sacramental precursors. And if one breaks communion with the Church, penance remains the sacramental route of return to the Holy Eucharist and restoration of communion with God and the community.

The New Testamental approach to the reconciliation of sinners was in many ways a continuation of Judaic practice by our Lord and His Apostles. Thus publicly the “Jews admitted wronging and prayed for forgiveness, grace and salvation, in the Temple and synagogue liturgy” (D9). There were three ways of atonement in Judaism: sacrifice, fasting, and suffering and death. Forms of penance included the use of sackcloth and ashes (borrowed from mourning customs) and corporate fasting. Yet, “in rabbinic thought… all these forms of atonement presumed repentance, which included determination to break with sinful ways, the admission of guilt, and the effort to make atonement to God and undo the harm done to others” (D10). Those who came to John the Forerunner for his “baptism of repentance for the remission of sin,” did so publicly “confessing their sins” (Mk 1:4-5). The New Testament also makes reference to communal penance (Jas 5:16) and this continued practice of the early Church is clearly manifest in the texts of early Eucharistic liturgies (Didache 14:1, 4:14, cf. 1 Cor 11:28-31, the liturgies of Addai and Mari, D9). The early use of prayers borrowed from the synagogues developed into “elaborate liturgies” designed to reconcile and rehabilitate sinners to the Church D24.