Leugen Kringledorf | April 22nd, 2023
One of the main themes across the Bible is the concept of repentance. All humans are sinners, and when we sin, we place fleshly desires over the desires of the Holy Spirit. By acknowledging that we have sinned before the Lord and by expressing our desire to turn from fleshly desires, the Lord grants us forgiveness. That being said, there has been a lot of debate historically over how repentance should take place. Classically, these arguments boil down to one main factor: Confession. Protestants claim that the confession of sins should take place between the sinner and the Lord directly, nearly exclusively. On the other hand, Roman Catholics argue that certain "venial" sins are allowed to be confessed to God alone; however, "mortal" sins must be confessed to a priest as part of the Sacrament of Penance (also known as the Sacrament of Reconciliation or the Sacrament of Confession). Nonetheless, in all Christian lives, confession is an integral part of our relationship with God. The Catechism has a very nice way of putting this as follows:
“The confession (or disclosure) of sins, even from a simply human point of view, frees us and facilitates our reconciliation with others. Through such an admission man looks squarely at the sins he is guilty of, takes responsibility for them, and thereby opens himself again to God and to the communion of the Church in order to make a new future possible."1
No Christian would argue against the importance of Confession in the Church. After all, there are Biblical verses that directly call for our confession to others and to God. However, the mode and motive for Confession remain historically controversial topics amongst traditions. This article will examine the various opinions of the Church on the topic of Confession.
To start, one of the oldest and clearest examples of Confession takes place in the Old Testament. In Psalm 32, David recounts the joy of forgiveness. Initially, David expresses the pain of withholding repentance mentioning how when he was silent, his "bones became brittle" from his "groaning all day long." But then, after choosing to turn to the Lord, David writes,
"Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not conceal my iniquity. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,” and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah Therefore let everyone who is faithful pray to you immediately."2
David's example presents a clear example of Confession directly to God for a heinous sin as this Psalm comes after David committed murder and adultery. Critics might correctly point out that David made this original confession to the Lord in front of Nathan, but David's Psalm shows that God did not forgive David because he confessed before Nathan; God forgave David because he repented. Ambrose's commentary on this matter further demonstrates this conclusion.
"Are you ashamed, sir, to do as David did—David, the king and the prophet, the ancestor of Christ according to the flesh? He was told of the rich man who had a great number of flocks and yet, when a guest arrived, took the poor man's one ewe lamb and killed it; and when he recognized that he was himself condemned by the story, he said, "I have sinned against the Lord." Therefore do not take it ill, sir, if what was said to King David is said to you, "You are the man." For if you listen with attention and say, "I have sinned against the Lord," if you say, in the words of the royal prophet, "O come, let us worship and fall down, and weep before the Lord our Maker", then it will be said to you also, "Because you repented, the Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die."3
The words of Nathan in 2nd Samuel thus serve not as those of an intercessor but rather words of an observer. Furthermore, this example of direct Confession to the Lord appears a few other times throughout the Old Testament. Yet the Old Testament also has examples of burnt offerings, which often (nearly always) involve the use of a priest. However, Hebrews directly clarifies that the forgiveness of sins had nothing to do with animal sacrifice.
"Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the reality itself of those things, it can never perfect the worshipers by the same sacrifices they continually offer year after year. Otherwise, wouldn’t they have stopped being offered, since the worshipers, purified once and for all, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in the sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year after year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, as he was coming into the world, he said:
You did not desire sacrifice and offering, but you prepared a body for me. You did not delight in whole burnt offerings and sin offerings. Then I said, 'See— it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, God.'
After he says above, You did not desire or delight in sacrifices and offerings, whole burnt offerings and sin offerings (which are offered according to the law), he then says, See, I have come to do your will. He takes away the first to establish the second. By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time. Every priest stands day after day ministering and offering the same sacrifices time after time, which can never take away sins. But this man, after offering one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God. He is now waiting until his enemies are made his footstool. For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are sanctified. The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. For after he says:
This is the covenant I will make with them after those days, the Lord says, I will put my laws on their hearts and write them on their minds, and I will never again remember their sins and their lawless acts.
Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer an offering for sin."4
There are a few key takeaways from this passage.
A.) The blood of bulls and goats never took away any sins.
B.) God did not delight in, nor did He desire burnt offerings.
C.) Forgiveness comes through Jesus.
Therefore, any attempt to use burnt offerings as a historic example of priestly intercession for forgiveness of sins comes up empty as all the sacrifices offered by priests in the Old Testament never took away any sins. All that remains then are the Old Testament examples where forgiveness is brought through Confession.
The New Testament offers a similar take on Confession. 1st John says,
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."5
This verse does not speak to the mode of Confession, but it does highlight the motive. The purpose of Confession is to acknowledge our sins so that our faithful God will forgive and cleanse us of all unrighteousness. However, the New Testament does contain a verse that speaks more to a mode of Confession. James writes,
"Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed...."6
This verse is commonly employed by Roman Catholic apologists to support the necessity of intercession via priests for Confession. Usually, this stems from a connection with the previous verses, which speak about how a sick person should call for the elders so that they might pray over and anoint the sick person with oil.7 However, this connection is made without consideration of the verse itself. The verse does not say to only confess to one another. It also says to pray for one another. Following the apologetic connection, this would mean that we should only pray for priests, but this is not what the verse specifies. James 5:16 merely states to confess to "one another" and to pray for "one another." Therefore, to say that the statement "one another" refers only to priests is illogical. Certainly, priests are included in the terminology but only because they are within the body of Christ. This verse speaks more to the mode of confessing to our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ as a means of accountability and support. It does not exclusively confine Confession to take place between people.
Now, setting Biblical verses aside, the historical practice of Confession is quite interesting. Roman Catholic apologists will claim that the early Church was unanimous in its view of Confession as shown in the following quote:
“The way the early church interpreted this [Confession], literally from the beginning of the Church until the Reformation, was as some form of the [Roman] Catholic idea of confession. Confession became more standardized, of course, as time went on.”8
After all, the Catechism references the conclusions of the Council of Trent and Jerome himself as follows:
“When Christ’s faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, ‘for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know.”9
Not to mention, in rebuking the Novatianists, Ambrose in 397 A.D. wrote,
“professed to show reverence for the Lord by reserving to Him alone the power of forgiving sins. Greater wrong could not be done than what they do in seeking to rescind His commands and fling back the office He bestowed…. The Church obeys Him in both respects, by binding sin and loosing it; for the Lord willed that for both the power should be equal.”10
However, there were many early Christians who dissented from this opinion. In the Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Sozomen documented the historical aspect of Penance in the Church. First, most notably, Sozomen mentions how Nectarius “abolished the office of the presbyter whose duty it was to preside over the imposition of penance.”11 Sozomen clarifies that this was the “first instance of suppression of this office in the Church” and speaks of Nectarius’ reason for doing such thing in writing,
“In the church as Constantinople, a presbyter was always appointed to preside over the penitents, until a lady of nobility made a deposition to the effect, that when she resorted as a penitent to the presbyter, to fast and offer supplications to God, and tarried for that purpose, in the church, a rape had been committed on her person by the deacon. Great displeasure was manifested by the people when this occurrence was made known to them, on account of the discredit that would result to the church; and the priests, in particular, were thereby greatly scandalized. Nectarius, after much hesitation as to what means ought to be adopted, deposed the deacon; and, at the advice of certain persons, who urged the necessity of leaving each individual to examine himself before participating in the sacred mysteries, he abolished the office of the presbyter presiding over penance. From that period, therefore, the performance of penance fell into disuse….”12
According to Sozomen, when a noblewoman went to give penance, a deacon raped her. Because of this great scandal in the church, Nectarius, after considering the words of those around him, came to abolish the position of Presbyter of Penance. This led individuals to examine themselves "before participating in the sacred mysteries” rather than individuals being examined by the priests in the church. And not only did the performance of Penance fall into “disuse,” but the abolishment of the position and practice was “followed by bishops in every region.”13
Keep in mind, Nectarius was not just a nameless Christian in the 4th century. Officially, Nectarius was the archbishop of Constantinople 381 A.D. to his death in 397 A.D. If Sozomen’s words are to be trusted, this means that an archbishop abolished the use of priests for Confession in the early Church. Not only this but Sozomen clarifies about the practice of Penance historically in the church. He writes,
“As the custom of doing penance never gained ground among the Novatians, regulations of this nature were of course unnecessary among them; but the custom prevailed among all other heretics, and prevails even to the present day. It is observed with great rigor by the Western churches, particularly at Rome, where there is a place appropriated to the reception of penitents, in which spot they stand and mourn until the completion of the services, for it is not lawful for them to take part in the mysteries….”14
As specified by Sozomen, the notion that the early church was unanimous in its opinion of confession is implausible. The practice was observed “with great rigor by the Western churches, particularly at Rome,” which implies that it was not in the Eastern churches, such as in Constantinople where the practice was abolished decades earlier by Nectarius. Furthermore, Sozomen’s acknowledgment of a special prevalence in Rome suggests that even in the Western churches, there may have been disagreements about how the practice was to take place, if done at all. Additionally, the writings of John Chrysostom further demonstrate dissension over confessional practices in the Early Church. Take the following examples:
“Tell your sins that you may efface them: if you blush to tell another what sins you have committed, tell them daily in your soul. I say not, tell them to your fellow-servant who may upbraid you, but tell them to God who cures them. Confess your sins upon your bed, that your conscience may there daily recognize its iniquities.”
“Now, however, it is not necessary to confess before witnesses; let the examination of your faults be made in your own thought: let the judgment be without a witness: let God alone see you confessing.”
“I do not lead you publicly into the view of your fellow-servants; I do not force you to disclose your sins to men; review and lay open your conscience before God. Show your wounds to the Lord, the best of physicians, and seek medicine from him. Show to him who upbraids not, but cures most kindly.”
“Certainly tell it not to man lest he upbraid you. Nor must you confess to your fellow servant, who may make it public; but show your wounds to the Lord, who takes care of you, who is kind and can cure.”15
Interestingly, Chrysostom would go so far as even characterizing the perspective of God on Confession, writing,
“I [God] oblige you not to come into the midst of a theatre, and have many witnesses; tell your sins to me [God] alone in private, that I [God] may cure the ulcer.”16
Chrysostom’s opinion is quite clear. He advocated in his time for the individual, private confession of sins to the Lord. Our “fellow-servants” do not provide us the cure, but it is God “who cures them.” Our sins should, according to Chrysostom, be told “alone in private,” confessed “upon your bed.” This makes for an interesting interpretation of Jerome’s words mentioned in the Catechism. The full quote referenced in the Catechism comes from Jerome's commentary on Ecclesiastes, in which he writes,
“Another meaning of this is, that if the serpent devil should bite anyone secretly, and he doesn't know it, he infects him with the poison of sin; and if he who has been struck keeps silent, and does not repent, and does not want to confess his wound to his teacher and brother, they who want to encourage him and see to it that he gets better, are not able to be of any use to him. For if an ill man is ashamed to confess his wound to a doctor, the doctor will not be able to cure what he does not know exists.”17
If we consider the words of Chrysostom, then who is the “doctor”? According to Chrysostom, the doctor is God as he is the one who cures. Therefore, it is plausible to interpret this passage from another point of view counter to Roman Catholic perspective. In light of these writings, to argue that there was no early Church dissension against the practice of Penance is ignorant. Not to mention, the existence of these writings seems problematic to Roman Catholics' point of view. Both Nectarius and Chrysostom are canonized saints in the Roman Catholic church, and yet, their very teachings go against that of the Roman Catholic church. John Calvin's commentary on this is quite intuitive.
“If auricular confession was a divine law, how could Nectarius have dared to abolish or remodel it? Nectarius, a holy man of God, approved by the suffrage of all antiquity, will they charge with heresy and schism? With the same vote they will condemn the church of Constantinople, in which Sozomen affirms that the custom of confessing was not only disguised for a time, but even in his own memory abolished. Nay, let them charge with defections not only Constantinople but all the Eastern churches, which (if they say true) disregarded an inviolable law enjoined on all Christians.”18
Despite all this, it is true, however, that a practice of Penance more analogous to Roman Catholic ideology was present within the early Church. But it is very clear from early writings that the practice present at that time is leagues disconnected from Confession today within Roman Catholic churches. In fact, it will be shown that certain early Christians actually disapproved of the modern form of Confession.
To start, Eusebius in quoting Caius writes of a man who engaged in the sacrament of Penance at a church. Here is what Eusebius wrote:
“He rose early in the morning and threw himself, clothed with sackcloth and covered with ashes, before Zephyrinus, the bishop, with great haste and many tears. He rolled not only beneath the feet of the clergy, but those even of the laity. By his weeping, he moved the pity of the compassionate church of the merciful Christ. And after trying many a prayer and showing the welts left by the blows that he had received [from angels], he was at length with difficulty admitted to communion.”19
The first glimpse into that earlier scene of Penance is one consisting of a sinner who in an effort to utterly humiliate himself, clothed himself with sackcloth and covered himself with ashes. He cast his body on the floor, rolled around, begged, and pleaded for the forgiveness of sins. It was only after the church began to pity him, and he was set in attempted prayer, supposedly showing the marks of a beating by angels, that he was admitted back into the congregation and allowed to take communion. There is no doubt that there are some people who cry and plead during Confession today, but there is a distinct difference between shedding tears over sins in the privacy of a room before one priest and the sheer humiliation before an entire group of people that is described. Eusebius’ quotation is not, however, a one-off. In fact, the scene described above is one written about by many early Christians. Take Origen’s account:
“He who is of lowly mind does not by any means humble himself in an unseemly or inauspicious manner- falling down upon his knees, casting himself headlong on the ground, putting on the dress of the miserable, or sprinkling himself with dust…. If there are some, however, who through their ignorance have not clearly understood this doctrine of humiliation (but act as they do), it is not our teaching that is to be blamed.”20
One major purpose of Penance according to Origen is then humiliation. Origen expresses that those who do not understand the importance of humiliation in the ways described are not taught by Origen or Christians associated with him. Those, therefore, who do not cast themselves on the floor, who do not lower themselves like dogs in the dirt, are ignorant of the true purpose of the doctrine of humiliation. They are missing the mark.
Cyprian gives a similar sentiment to Origen’s. He writes,
“Even as we have sinned greatly, let us lament…. You must cling to the ashes and be surrounded with sackcloth and dirt. After losing the garment of Christ, you must be willing now to have austere clothing. After the devil’s meat, you must prefer fasting. Be earnest in righteous works, by which sins may be purged. Frequently apply yourself to almsgiving, by which souls are freed from death…. Let good works be done without delay.”21
Cyprian takes it a step further. Not only are we to dress in clothes with no adornment, and not only are we to cast ourselves in the ash and dirt, but we are to fast after having “the devil’s meat.” We are to give alms to the church, typically either food or money. We are to do good works, for this is how “sins may be purged.”
Furthermore, Tertullian’s depiction seems the most shocking. He writes,
“When bringing the repentant adulterer into the church, for the purpose of softening the brotherhood by his prayers, do you yourself lead him into the midst and prostrate him? There he is, all in haircloth and ashes, a compound of disgrace and horror, before the widows, before the presbyters, begging for the tears of all, licking the footprints of all, clasping the knees of all."22
If someone behaved like this in church, there is no doubt that the congregation would be horrified. The priest would undoubtedly tell the man to have some sense of self-control. He would be thought crazy, demon-possessed, or high. In the modern world, there are none who go so low. Such a sight would be the talk of the town.
These writings highlight that for the early Churches that did practice a more modern relatable form of Confession, the sacrament of Confession known to these earlier Christians was still radically different than the modern institutions present today. Reading through these early writings, it would be easy to conclude that these early Christians would believe that we have become "more mindful of embarrassment than of salvation."23 All in all, history continues to show that opinions on Church traditions vary wildly and often differ drastically from our current perspectives. It is best then to approach conversations over tradition with humility, realizing that there really is no black and white.
1 Catechism 1455
2 Psalm 32: 5-6
3 Ambrose. The Governance of God. 2.4.
4 Hebrews 10: 1-18
5 1st John 1: 9
6 James 5:16
7 Mulcahy, Tom. "The Bible Says to Confess Your Sins to One Another." Catholic Strength. Accessed April 20th, 2023. https://catholicstrength.com/2016/11/29/the-bible-says-to-confess-your-sins-to-one-another/
8 This quote comes from a dialogue between me and a Roman Catholic apologist. This quote shows that it is a common apologetics tool by Roman Catholics to claim early Christian consensus on various controversial topics. While this may not come from a completely reputable source, rest assured this sentiment can be found in other Roman Catholic apologetical works.
9 Catechism 1456
10 Ambrose. De poenit., I, ii, 6.
11 Sozomen. Ecclesiastical History, Book VII. Chapter 16. Translated by Chester D. Hartranft.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 John Calvin. Calvin Institutes. Chapter 4. Quotes are Chrysostom's words, not Calvin's.
16 Ibid.
17 Jerome. Commentary on Ecclesiastes 10:11.
18 John Calvin. Calvin Institutes. Chapter 4.
19 Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History, Book V. Chapter 18. Para. 12.
20 Philip Schaff. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4. Chapter XV.
21 Cyprian. c. 250, W, 5.447.
22 Tertullian. c.212, W, 4.86.
23 Tertullian c. 203, W, 3.664.