The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum The Purpose Of Penance

Original draft posted on christianchat by saintmichaeldefendthem (me).

During the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we confess our sins, recounting first our capital sins and then our lessers. The priest, in the name of Jesus and by the authority of Christ's Church pronounces absolution in accordance with Christ's words,

John 20:23
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Then the priest assigns penance. This usually takes the form of certain prayers, charity, or acts of kindness to another. Protestants often are confused over this thinking that the penitant is being asked to pay for sins that Jesus already paid for on the cross. But what is the real reason for penance?


Quote:
Luke 19:
8 Then Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold.”
9 And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham; 10 for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Was Zacchaeus trying to pay for the salvation so freely given by Jesus? Not at all and that's not the reason for penance. When we sin, we get into a rut. We've turned our back on God and gone down a different path. It's not without effort that our course is changed and we are free of the rut. Forgiveness is given liberally to all who ask.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

So we are clean before God, but our inclination to sin remains until, by an act of righteousness, we set our feet firmly back on the path of righteousness so that we do not easily fall into the same pattern of sin again. An act of penance is a pledge of good faith, a commitment to change our ways, and a sign that we are the sons of righteousness even when we occasionally sin. You don't even have to be Catholic to perform an act of penance and I recommend that all baptized Christians do so for the reasons stated.

There's no better way to realign ourselves to the holiness we're called to.

1. Thanks for providing some information concerning the Roman Catholic practice of penance.

2. I find no biblical support for the confession of one's personal sins to a priest, minister, rabbi, or whoever. What I do find is a) confession of our sins to God, and b) confession of our sins committed against another to the one against whom the sin was done. (2Sam 19:19; 2Chron 7:14; Matt 18:15-17; Lk 15:17-21; 2Cor 7:9-11; Eph 4:32; Jam 5:16)

1. Again, I find no biblical support for the "assigning of penance... in the form or certain prayers, charity, or acts of kindness to another." However, what I do find is that true repentance includes not only the acknowledgment of, confession of, turning from sin, but also the resolve to new obedience in regard to that sin. This 'resolve' includes both the ceasing and desisting of the sin but also, when possible, the making of reparation. (Lk 19:8; Eph 4:28)

2. Looking at Luke 19:8,9, which you offered as a proof text as a "reason for penance",
a) There was no confession to a priest (intermediary), but rather Zacchaeus spoke directly to God; Jesus Christ.
b) There was no assignment of penance by Christ but rather Zacchaeus himself expressed his conviction of sin along with the resolve to new obedience in his giving half of his wealth to the poor and his willingness to restore four-fold to those who he had cheated. These acts were the result of the inner working of the Spirit; a mark of grace.

Sorry, but I'm unclear as to what you are intending to relate here. Are you saying that any act of alleged "righteousness" (which is what?) turns us from sin and helps us walk in all holiness? And, I'm wondering what this "pledge of good faith" means? Is it a pledge to God, man or both or perhaps neither? How do these acts of penance, i.e., prayers, accomplish any of the three things mentioned: a) a pledge of good faith, b) a commitment to change our ways, and c) a sign that we are the sons of righteousness?

via_Dolorosa,

In your quote of Luke 19.......

8 Then Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold.”
9 And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham; 10 for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

...you suggest that Zacchaeus and Jesus were working together, that Jesus took care of the salvation part, while Zacchaeus did his part of performing his good works, pulling himself up by his own bootstraps as it were, so that he, like us, could get out of his rut.

Protestants would say that Zacchaeus was not speaking in accordance with Jesus, but rather that Christs revelation was other than a Zacchaeus way of thinking. Zacchaeus offers up his paltry, worthless works as if they validate reasons for Christ's consideration. Jesus speaks in spite of Zacchaeus, not in league with him, giving the sole reason how it is that a son of Abraham, whom Jesus in these verses calls "lost", could be saved.

The verse is a revelation that Jesus does not recognize bootstraps has having anything to do with ruts. That is, salvation came to the Jews as prophesied not because any of them was a bootstrap-puller of some sort, making good contribution to his rightness with God, but solely because "the Son of Man has come", and that Zaccheus, in all his pulling, was never going to get out of his rut, but rather was one of the "lost" now, happily, found.

There is other precedence for Jesus speaking this way. Read again his conversation with Nicodemus, another man of good will toward Jesus who totally misunderstood him. Nicodemus is talking about child birth, and Jesus is busily revealing long held secrets of how the Father regenerates a dead (Eph 2) soul to new life.

In both cases, the lost soul is not making a contribution to Jesus' revelation, rather he is showing the lostness of his confession while Christ is revealing how He alone accounts for getting out of ruts, and getting out of wombs.

The practice of confession has certainly come a long way. At first, confessions were done openly in the congregation and then moved (quickly!) to the privacy of the confessional. The Bible doesn't say anywhere to confess to God, but it's certainly implied. Even if you observe the passage, "confess your sins one to another" it must necessarily be concluded that accountability to the church and accountability to God are one and the same. It isn't either/or. The idea here is that when someone sins, they offend not only God, but the Church and both relationships must be restored. The most efficient way to do this is by the presbyter who represents both God and the church in absolving of sins.

The power to forgive sins was given directly to the apostles by Christ before His ascension. "Whose sins ye forgive.." implies a commissioning of direct authority to forgive sins in the name of Christ. It needs to be noted that the 12 apostles were the leadership
of the church and it's a mistake to assume that every clause of Christ's commission was given to all Christians equally. "Did I not choose you twelve?" Jesus asked. And so when Christ ascended, the leadership structure of the Church was already in place. If there is any doubt that the apostles each held an office, it ought to be satisfied with the appointment of Matthias in Acts as a replacement to Judas. If the apostles held no office and were no different than any other Christian regarding authority, then there would be no need to replace Judas.

The successors of the apostles are bishops and as we see the early church forming, each synod was governed by a bishop and that bishop appointed presbyters to represent him. So when a priest hears a confession and gives absolution, he does so by the authority of the bishop, who is a part of a long line of succession of bishops going all the way back to the Apostles...who were authorized by Christ to forgive sins. I'm sorry my answer is so longwinded, but it is necessary to lay down some groundwork to answer your question.

And we are really close on this one, Pilgrim. It would be great if everyone, like Zaccaeus, voluntarily offered pennance for their sins. I'm sure you understand my point of how deftly an act of righteousness can turn our wayward feet on the right path again. When a child has transgressed, parents look for a sign that the child fully understands what he did wrong and is truly sorry. The most efficient, effective, and credible sign that a child is sorry is to do something good. A good act goes way beyond words when it comes to conveying remorse.

It also should be noted that this example is used to buttress the point about the effect of reparations to get someone out of the rut of sin. As you can imagine, Zacchaeus had grown accustomed to an income greatly supplemented by dishonest dealings. He was not only sinning, but he was in a rut of sin. Saying "sorry" would have been insufficient to affect a true change of course. This was the purpose for this example from the gospels.



A pledge of good faith goes along with the axiom, "actions speak louder than words". An endless cycle of sin, confession, forgiveness, and sin can ensue when acts of substance fail to accompany the confession. We grow deaf to someone saying "sorry" repeatedly when their actions do not indicate a genuine course correction that we associate with genuine repentence.

In Christ's most Sacred Heart.

Greetings Tulipman.

That interpretation was certainly not the point of my essay. I thought I made it clear that pennance is a matter of course correction and has nothing to do with salvation or propitiation for sins. I understand that you're a Calvinist and so the notion of our participation in the salvation transaction is abhorant, but that's not what this essay is about.


I disagree that the pennance of Zacchaeus was either paltry or worthless. If I gave half my goods to the poor, I wouldn't consider that a niggardly donation, but perhaps others would. Neither was it worthless. In line with the main thrust of my essay, works of charity changed his course and ensured that his repentence was genuine.

Nobody is suggesting that Zacchaeus saved himself either fully or even partially. Similarly nobody is making the case that he earned forgiveness by his proposition. Simply being in the presence of Christ, and in the light of a holy God, Zacchaeus became aware of his sinfulness, his need for forgiveness, and the need to embark upon a new course by costly ammends.


I really think we're on the same page. Ephesians 2:8,9 is a hallmark passage for both Protestants and Catholics in understanding that we are saved by grace, through faith; and that even the faith is something vouchsafed to us by God. Good works do not subtract from this economy in the least. Quite the opposite, the more prolific one is in good works, the more God is glorified, when it's understood that we are unprofitable servants and that even our good works are a gift from heaven.

In Christ's most Sacred Heart

Hi Via,

You wrote: " I thought I made it clear that pennance is a matter of course correction and has nothing to do with salvation or propitiation for sins."

Via, nobody would need a 'propitiation' for sins so long as they could accomplish 'remission' of sins on their own through penance.

Penance in Catholic dogma is (and has long been) a sacrament made pursuant to the remission of the penitents sin and definitely NOT only course correction. Your comment is either dishonesty or ignorance, though I wouldn't mean the latter in the derogatory sense. Even John A. Hardon in "the Catholic Catechism" states on page 487 "For the entire and perfect remission of these sins there are three acts required of the penitent..."

In Catholicism, the work of penance by a sinner has everything to do with the remission of sin....in fact, there is no 'forgiveness' without it. If you wish to split a hair with me and say that remission of sin by a penitent and propitiation for sin by Christ are separate things, then that is more Catholic (and not my) dogma, and I might compliment you with saying that I think you already know that.

Here you might like to clarify your statement by now saying "Oh, you mean that penance...." ??

In any case, your sentence is odd in light of your very next sentence where you grant that Catholicism does grant "participation in the salvation transaction", which I still maintain you were saying of Zaccheus. And it is because it is a very Catholic belief that it was very reasonable of me to think that was your allusion.

"I disagree that the pennance of Zacchaeus was either paltry or worthless."

I think to be fair to me you should have finished your sentence by saying "to his salvation." for it was about his salvation that I was speaking, as you already acknowledged. To now drop the notion and charge me with (effectively) saying that nobody should bother with good works isn't fair. Just because I'm calvinistic doesn't mean I don't help and believe in helping old ladies across the street or giving to the poor. We're not speaking of the inherent good in good works, we're talking about the capacity of any of our own good to stretch us further toward our rightness with God which, you may also know, to a Calvinist also means salvation. Only the saved are right with God. Again, given Catholic dogma, it is not unfair of me to charge you with saying that there is such value (of contributing to his remission of sin/salvation/rightness with God) as you analyze Zacchaeus's good works.

"works of charity changed his course and ensured that his repentence was genuine."

As a Catholic you may say so, as a Calvinist I say that his act he commits as a matter of his course has nothing necessarily to do with his repentance since even the unrepentant heathen do such works as Zacchaeus without affect to their course to hell. The works, of themselves, provision nothing toward the conditioning of man's soul. On Calvinist presuppositions (which we of course would simply say is Scripture and not mere bias), I can say so. As for his charity ensuring his repentance was genuine, again you use language we share with meanings that conflict. In Catholic dogma the "ensuring" is a power inherent in the act, a securing feature with it's own efficacy, whereas to a Calvinist the question would simply arise "ensures it to whom?"

I'm trying to show how our presuppositions create clashes in interpretation which are difficult to predict. When you write unawares, then you sound like a subtle deceiver, even if you are not or do not intend to be.

"nobody is making the case that he earned forgiveness by his proposition"

Since Catholicism says effectively if not exactly that about the sacrament of penitent acts demanded by a priest (at the Council of Florence -"The effect of this sacrament is deliverance from sin"- and the Council of Trent -"So far as pertains to its force and efficacy, the effect of this sacrament is reconciliation with God,") then are you willing to take a step away from it?

"Simply being in the presence of Christ, and in the light of a holy God, Zacchaeus became aware of his sinfulness, his need for forgiveness, and the need to embark upon a new course by costly amends."

Well spoken. To embark on a good Calvinist line of thinking, answer the question "And why was being in the presence of Christ not sufficient for the others, like the other thief on the cross?"

"Ephesians 2:8,9 is a hallmark passage for both Protestants and Catholics in understanding that we are saved by grace, through faith"

Close. So close I can't tell if, again, you are unaware of the gulf between us, or if you are being purposefully deceitful. We would insist the thought be completed by adding to the end of that sentence the word "alone", for in that very chapter St. Paul continues "... it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

But at Trent the Catholic Church insisted:

"CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

and

"CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema."

Via, you want on the one hand to say that Zacchaeus was not buying his salvation. But at the same time you must preach that he was doing what was necessary to do for remission of his sins. That kind of language is simply doublespeak to a Calvinist since to us salvation and the forgiveness of sins are part of the same instant in our lives that occurs but once and never again. Only on Catholic presuppositions could one draw a distinction and deny salvation by works but participation in forgiveness at the same time.