The development of the sacrament of confession from “public penance” to “private confession”.

‘‘. . . He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:22-23)

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt.3:2). With these words, first uttered by St John the Baptist, Jesus Christ began His own mission (Matt.4:17). Christianity was from the very beginning a call to repentance, to conversion, to a “change of mind” (metanoia - μετάνοια). A radical transformation of one’s entire way of life and thought, a renovation of the mind and senses, a rejection of sinful deeds and thoughts, a transfiguration of the human person: these are the main elements of Christ’s message.

The pattern for repentance is set by Jesus Christ in his parable of the prodigal son:

11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. 22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: 23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. - Luke 15:11-24

Having lived a sinful life “in a far country”, that is, far away from God, the prodigal son, after many tribulations, comes to himself and decides to return to his Father. Repentance begins with his conversion (‘came to himself’), which is then transformed into determination to return (‘I will arise and go’), and finishes with his return to God (‘he arose and came’). This is followed by confession (‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you’), which results in forgiveness (‘Bring quickly the best robe’), adoption (‘this son’), and spiritual resurrection (‘was dead, and is alive again’). Repentance is therefore a dynamic process, a way towards God, rather than a mere act of recognizing one’s sins.

Every Christian has all of his sins forgiven in the sacrament of Baptism. However, “there is no man who shall live and sin not”. Sins committed after Baptism deprive the human person of the fullness of life in God. Hence the necessity of the “second Baptism”, the expression use by the church Fathers for repentance, is emphasizing its purifying, renovating and sanctifying energy.

The sacrament of Penance is spiritual healing for the soul. Every sin, depending on its gravity, is for the soul a small injury, a deep wound, sometimes a serious disease, or perhaps evens a fatal illness. In order to be spiritually healthy, the human person must regularly visit his father-confessor, a spiritual doctor: “Have you sinned? Go to church and repent in your sin... Here is a physician, not a judge. Here nobody is condemned, but everybody receives forgiveness of sins”, says St John Chrysostom.

In the Orthodox Church today, one can notice a very large variety in the practice of confession and this may vary from one place to another; but the central focus of all Orthodox Christians is confession/penance and the Eucharist life.

Throughout history, the rite of penance was not "private" but an "ecclesial" (Church) event. Historically it has evolved into a private act of confession through which every Christian's membership in the church is periodically renewed. In the Orthodox Church today there is a certain variety in both the practice and the rite of penance. In the churches of the Balkans and the Middle East, it fell into disuse during the four centuries of Turkish occupation but is gradually being restored today. In Greek-speaking churches only certain priests, especially appointed by the bishop, have the right to hear confessions. The rite of confession in the “Euchologion” (*) retains the form of a prayer, or invocation, said by the priest for the remission of the penitent's sins. Confession, in Orthodox practice, is generally viewed as a form of spiritual healing rather than as a tribunal.

(*) - (The Greek word ευχολογιον literally means "book of prayers." The Slavonic word Trebnik literally means "book of needs." This type of service book varies widely in contents and arrangements. The most comprehensive edition is the ευχολογιον το μεγα or Great Euchologion contains the prayers of the priest, deacon, and reader for Vespers, Orthros, and the Divine Liturgy; the six remaining sacraments, and other services of blessings (which in the west are often referred to as sacramentals - http://orthodoxwiki.org/Euchologion).

The relative lack of legalism reflects the Eastern patristic approach to sin—i.e., as an internal passion and as an enslavement. The external sinful acts—which alone can be legally tried—are only manifestations of man's internal disease.

In addition, it was the duty of the apostles, and then of bishops and presbyters, to hear the confessions and to give absolution. Christ said to His apostles: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt.18:18). The power of “binding and loosing”, which was given to the apostles and through them to bishops and priests, is manifested in the absolution which the priest gives to the one who repents on behalf of God. But why is it necessary to confess sins to a priest, a fellow human being? Is it not enough to tell God everything and receive absolution from Him? In order to answer this question, one should be reminded that in the Christian Church a priest is only a “witness” to God’s presence and action: it is not the priest who acts in liturgical celebrations and in the sacraments, but God Himself. The confession of sins is always addressed to God, and forgiveness is also received from Him. In promoting the idea of confession before a priest, the Church has always taken into account a psychological factor: one might not feel quite as ashamed before God about one’s sins, but it is always embarrassing to reveal one’s sins before a fellow human being. Moreover, the priest is also a spiritual director, a counselor who can offer advice on how to avoid particular sins in the future. The sacrament of Penance is not limited to a mere confession of sins. It also presupposes recommendations, or sometimes “epitimia” (*) (penalties) on the part of the priest. It is primarily in the sacrament of Penance that the priest acts in his capacity of spiritual father.

(*)- ("Epitimia" or penance is to be understood as an interdiction which, according to Church canons, the priest as a spiritual physician may apply in certain cases in order to treat the moral diseases of his spiritual children. The Canons contain many recommendations for sins such as murder, adultery and other sins of the flesh, and many other circumstances. Most of these specify a certain period of time when the penitent is barred from receiving Holy Communion. An Epitimia need not only be a prohibition from receiving the Holy Mysteries. A confessor might impose a fasting beyond that which others do, some additional prayers of repentance, performing of a certain amount of prostrations, works of mercy, reading of the Holy Scripture and other righteous exercises. A special penance or Epitimia imposed sometimes by the priest-confessor is not a punishment but represents an action for correction or pedagogical healing. The purpose is to deepen contrition for sinning and to support the will for correction. The Apostle Paul said, "For godly sorrow produces repentance to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death" (2 Corinthians 7:10). One of the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council declares: "Receiving from God the power to bind and loose, the priest must evaluate the nature of sin and preparedness of the repentant, and thus utilize appropriate means of healing. But if not applying appropriate means to this or the other, salvation will not be available to the sinner. For all sins are not similar, but different and specific, and represent many aspects of harm from which evil develops and disperses further, unless it is stopped by the healing power." In our pitiful days, when Christians wallow in ignorance about righteousness, and society teaches them to be ever more self-indulgent, the wise confessor gives out Epitimia with a gentle hand. It is important to not snuff out the small flame of contrition that burns in a penitent by dispensing an Epitimia that may be very appropriate for a more spiritually mature person, but would only be perceived as a punishment to someone who can barely tolerate spiritual milk. - http://www.orthodox.net/articles/epitimia-sacrament-confession.html)

In early church history, the rite of Baptism marked one's repentance and entry into the Church with full participation in the Eucharistic life of the Church (James Dallen, The Reconciling Community: The Rite of Penance, (NY: Pueblo Publishing Company, 1974) pg. 17). The confession of sins was most likely a community prayer followed by the kiss of peace to signify the reconciliation of the assembly to each other and to God. For grave post-baptismal sins such as adultery, murder and apostasy - sins that were known by the entire community - there was the lengthy and severe process of public penance. This developed late in the second century as Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire. Penitents were excommunicated from the church for periods of up to several years. Besides the length and severity of penances at this time, the emphasis of penance was the Eucharist and the restoration of the sinner to the Church. Penance was seen as a gradual healing process that had its endpoint with the return to Eucharistic communion (John H. Erickson, The Challenge of Our Past (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1991).

From the earliest times to the present, there has been a constant and deeply felt need for a church sacrament signifying forgiveness of sin, but the actual form of the sacrament has been adapted greatly to changing customs and various situations in order to make it more meaningful.

Confession deals with sin. It is essential that our practice of confession recall to the mind of modern people the existence of sin, a spiritual reality which is rejected or hidden by our modern world. Sin has to be considered not in a moralistic approach dealing with the categories of good or bad, permitted and forbidden, but in an existential approach: our relation with God and our progress on the path towards deification.

Confession is a Mystery of healing, which leads us to wholeness and restores our relationship with God. As one has to go to the hospital, to see a physician, when he is ill, one should approach confession to be healed from all his spiritual illness, from sin.

The Three Synoptic describe how Jesus first forgave the sins of a paralytic let down through the roof, and then cured his bodily illness. The scribes who were present complained within themselves, saying that only God can forgive sins. Yet, Jesus proved He had forgiven by working that cure. That which people used to think could be done only by God Himself, can now be done by the priests. Jesus on His very first visit to the Apostles in Jerusalem (And with that he breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. - John 20-22-23) gave His Apostles this astonishing power to forgive sins. He did it on His very first visit, as if He could hardly wait to give out that forgiveness for which He had just paid so terrible a price in His passion. Protestants say He did not give the Apostles such a power - He told them to preach that God would forgive their sins in justification by faith. But that is not at all the normal meaning of the words. For Jesus said: "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven then." The apostles were to forgive, not to merely announce God would forgive. Further, part of this process needs to be confession of at least mortal sins. How else could an Apostle or priest know what or whether to forgive without being told the sins? Priests would never have invented such a thing, for hearing confessions is a difficult and unpleasant task. At the last Supper, Jesus had promised to send the Holy Spirit, to lead them into all truth (But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come - John 16:13 and cf. 14:26). This did not mean new public revelations. It meant that over the centuries the Holy Spirit would lead the Church then ever deeper penetration into the deposit of faith once given. In view of this gradual penetration into truth, it is not strange if the Church did not at first realize everything about the Sacrament of Penance. Look how slow Peter was, in Acts 10, to see He must admit gentiles into the Church, even though Jesus had told Him: "Go and make disciples of all nations" (Mt. 28: 19).

So we do not at first meet clear mentions of the Sacrament of Penance. This does not mean it was not used, it only means we do not happen to have any record of it. Had it been suddenly invented later, there would have been uproar, such as came when new heresies developed. But there is no such thing.

In the early Church repentance and faith were the two basic conditions of baptism. Initially, repentance carried the idea of a forsaking of sin and the world and self and the giving of oneself wholly to Christ to follow him. The idea of repentance as “penance”, that is, as consisting of human works by which one satisfied God’s justice for personal sin was unknown. This “Byzantine penitential practice, as the one of all the other Churches, is, the one which presents the greatest development” (J. ERICKSON, « Penitential discipline in the Orthodox Canonical Tradition », The Challenge of our Past, Crestwood, NY, 1991); because, it is linked with the canons of the ancient councils and the Church Fathers.

The writings of the “Apostolic Fathers”, for example, are full of exhortations to holy living and appeals to the readers to prove the validity of their faith by good works. These writings clearly teach that true saving faith is evidenced in good works and a holy life. But they do not teach that good works are in any way meritorious in salvation. On the contrary, they point to Christ himself as the source of salvation and emphasize repentance, faith, and baptism as the means of appropriating that salvation and of holy living as the natural result and evidence of true conversion. Furthermore, the power received by Church from Christ to bind and loose (cf. Mt 16:19) was interpreted precisely as the power to excommunicate and to reconcile. To “apostolic fathers” the “penance” was not regarded as a punishment but as a therapy; it was a period of trial, during which the Christian had to prove his willingness to reintegrate the community. As you can guess it, the confession was public.

Clement of Rome, for example, clearly states that forgiveness and salvation are gifts of God given completely independent of human works. Clement makes these comments about justification by faith:

“All of them therefore were all renowned and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous actions which they had wrought, but through his will; and therefore we who by his will have been called in Christ Jesus, are not made righteous by ourselves, or by our wisdom or understanding or piety or the deeds which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which Almighty God has justified all men from the beginning of the world; to him be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, The Epistle of S. Clement to the Corinthians, 49, 32 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), pp. 34, 26).

Clement pronounces any thought of men being able to justify themselves before God and merit his grace on the basis of their own works. Justification, according to Clement, comes by faith in the person of Christ. He presents Christ as the one who has made a substitutionary atonement and his blood is the sole basis upon which men are justified and receive forgiveness, which is appropriated by repentance and faith. A large portion of his letter is very similar to the epistle of James in that he appeals to his readers to walk in holiness before God and in love for their fellow Christians.

In the "Didache" (*) we see these words (14:1): "On the Lord's day, gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so your sacrifice may be pure". – This is confession of sins in the context of the Church’s Eucharistic worship.

(*) – (The Didache (pron.: /ˈdɪdəkiː/; Koine Greek: Διδαχή) or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didachē means "Teaching") is a brief early Christian treatise, dated by most scholars to the late first or early 2nd century. But J.A.T. Robinson argues that it is first generation, dating it c. A.D.40-60. The first line of this treatise is "Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles (or Nations) by the Twelve Apostles" The text, parts of which constitute the oldest surviving written catechism, has three main sections dealing with Christian ethics, rituals such as baptism and Eucharist, and Church organization. It is considered the first example of the genre of the Church Orders. The work was considered by some of the Church Fathers as part of the New Testament[5] but rejected as spurious or non-canonical by others, eventually not accepted into the New Testament canon. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church "broader canon" includes the Didascalia, a work which draws on the Didache. Lost for centuries, a Greek manuscript of the Didache was rediscovered in 1873 by Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of Nicomedia in the Codex Hierosolymitanus. A Latin version of the first five chapters was discovered in 1900 by J. Schlecht. The Didache is considered part of the category of second-generation Christian writings known as the Apostolic Fathers. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache)

So: Did they hear Confessions before the Liturgy on each Sunday? Not so likely. This probably meant, a sort of liturgical confession which is not to be understood as the public confession of one's individual sins before the congregation, nor was it the simple recitation of the Lord's Prayer before communion. The confession of sins was most likely a community prayer followed by the kiss of peace to signify the reconciliation of the assembly to each other and to God. When we first meet fully clear mentions of this Sacrament, the process is very long and difficult, hardly to be a routine before the Liturgy.

There is another text like this in the "Epistle of Pope Clement I" sent to Corinth, probably around 95 A.D. (51:1): "It is good for a man to confess his failings rather than to harden his heart". This probably expresses a general disposition to admit failings and not become hard. But something entirely clear appears in the work called the "Shepherd", by Hermas (*).

(*) - (The Shepherd of Hermas (Greek: Ποιμήν του Ερμά; Hebrew: רועה הרמס; sometimes just called The Shepherd) is a Christian literary work of the 1st or 2nd century, considered a valuable book by many Christians, and considered canonical scripture by some of the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus).

This Hermas was a brother of Pope Pius I (140-150). Yet Hermas mentions that the vision told him to make a copy and give it to Clement - who is most likely Pope Clement I, elected probably 88 or 92, though some would make it a decade earlier. Early in this work, Hermas has a vision of an old woman, who stands for the Church. But in most of the work he tells of seeing the angel of the Sacrament of Penance. In "Mandates" 4. 3. 1 we read this remarkable passage, in which Hermas speaks to the angel, and the angel replies.

Hermas says:

"Sir, I have heard from some teachers that there is no other repentance but that which happened when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins." Then the angel replied: "You have heard correctly, for it is so. One who has received remission of sins should never sin again, but live in purity."

This of course refers to baptism. But it is puzzling to hear there is no other means of forgiveness, especially since the angel goes right on and explains that there is one:

"But since you question carefully about everything, I will explain this too to you, without giving any inducement to those who in the future come to faith, or those who already believe. Those who already believe, or who will believe in the future, have no repentance for sins, but they do have the remission of their former sins. But the Lord appointed repentance for those who were called before these days. For the Lord knows the heart, and since He knew all things in advance, He knew the weakness of man, and the subtlety of the devil. The Lord, then, being compassionate, acted kindly with His creation, and established this repentance. And control of it was given to me. But I say to you, after this great and holy calling, if a man be tempted by the devil and sin, he has one repentance. But if he sins and repents repeatedly -- repentance is of little value to him, and will difficulty will he live."

The language is surely puzzling. First the angel says there is only one means, Baptism. But right away he admits there is another, the Sacrament of Penance. Yet he seems to say it can be used only by those who were called to the faith long ago. But there seems to be no means of repentance for others. Commentators think the language is deliberately slanted for psychological reasons. The author wants to make it appear first, that there is no other sacrament, then, admitting there is, he seems to limit its use very greatly. The purpose was to deter anyone from freely breaking the seal. For by Baptism we are sealed as God's property and, no one should ever break that seal.

An extreme stress on that seal is seen in Tertullian, ("On Baptism" 18. 4, between 200 and 206 AD):

"For no less reason the unmarried should put off [Baptism], for in them there is an aptness to temptation --in virgins because of their ripeness, as also in the widowed on account of their freedom - until either they are married, or are made stronger for continence. One who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear to receive it more than to defer it."

We need to know that there was a big three then: murder, adultery, and apostasy. Some extremists said that these could not be forgiven by the Bishop or Priest. Tertullian, after becoming a heretical Montanist, in his "De Pudicitia" 18. 18 (dated 213-23) wrote:

"But if the clemency of God is open yet to those who are ignorant [of Him] and infidels, surely also penitence invites clemency to itself, that kind of penitence being still on hand after believing [after Baptism] which can obtain pardon for [relatively] lesser faults from the Bishop, or for greater and unforgivable ones from God alone."

Yet in the same work, in 19. 24-25 Tertullian clearly implies confession for many lesser sins:

"For to whom does it not happen that he is unjustly angry, and beyond the setting of the sun, or that he lays violent hands [on someone] or that he easily curses or swears rashly, or violates the faith of a contract, or that he lies out of shame or necessity. In businesses, in duties, in making money, in manner of living, in looking, in hearing - what great temptations! So that if there be no pardon for these things, salvation would be open to no one."

But earlier, before he became a heretic, in his work "De penitentia" 4, Tertullian said:

"For all sins, then, whether of the flesh or the spirit, whether committed in act or [only] in will, He who destined punishment by judgment, also promised pardon for penance. . . . God then, foreseeing his [the devil's] poison, though the door of forgiveness and extinction has been closed and fastened, He allowed something to yet be open. For he placed in the vestibule a second penance, which is open to those who knock, but once, since it is already the second time."

We gather then that at one time Tertullian did believe in the Sacrament of Penance, and did not rule out the use of it even for the big three. There seems to have been confession for lesser things, for he spoke of sins committed only in will and not in action, that is, only by forming an intention to sin, without carrying it out.

This agrees with the words of St. Cyprian (c. 250):

"In lesser sins, sinners do penance for the fixed time, and according to the order of discipline, come to confession and, through the imposition of the hands of the Bishop and clergy receive the right of communion."

Tertullian, in "De Paenitentia" 7. 13 at least hint the sacrament could be used more than once:

"Let it be irksome to sin again, but let it not be irksome to repent again. Let it be irksome to be in danger again, but not to be freed again."

Tertullian, "De Pudicitia" (dated 213 to 223 -- he was then a heretical Montanist), in section 1, he [now a heretic] ridicules the "peremptory" edict of the "Bishop of Bishops" who says he can remit the sins of adultery and fornication.

Therefore, according to Tertullian, the term for penance, commonly used even by Latin Christians, is the Greek expression "exomologesis"; the word means "confession", but implies as well an accompanying "discipline for man's prostration and humiliation." Before considering the nature of this “exomologesis”, let us say a word of the confession of sins which proceeded. The first thing to observe is that the confession was not always spontaneous. This was certainly encouraged and rewarded with a curtailment of the public penance. Encouraged also, was the practice of informing the bishop of those who were leading scandalous lives in the community. In such cases, where a formal accusation was brought by one of the faithful against another, the bishop, either alone or attended by his college of presbyters and deacons, heard the case. If the accused was found guilty and admitted his crime, this confession was deemed enough; and if his dispositions warranted, he was granted the privilege of making his “exomologesis”. If he denied the charge or remained recalcitrant, he was visited with the major excommunication and was completely cut off from the Church of God until he reformed and asked for penance. Following this private or semi-private confession, the sinner was enrolled in the order of penitents through an imposition of hands. The first step in the process of humiliation was publicly to declare the sins for which the penance was imposed. This was certainly the case where the crime was public and where no scandal would result to the faithful or harm to the penitent.

St. Cyprian, "On the Lapsed" [in persecution] 251 AD:

"Then how much greater and better the fear of those who though bound by no guilt of sacrifice or certificate, yet, since they have even thought of doing this, sorrowfully and simply confessing this very thing before the priests of God, make their confession of conscience."

This is the persecution of Trajan Decius, [(Latin: Gaius Messius Quintus Decius Augustus; ca. 201 – June 251), was Roman Emperor from 249 to 251. In the last year of his reign, he co-ruled with his son Herennius Etruscus until they were both killed in the Battle of Abrittus.], who ordered all to have a certificate saying they had sacrificed. Some bought these, but then, showing them, was a denial of Christ. Here Cyprian speaks of those who had not done either thing, but only considered it, but yet came to confession for the sin of thought.

Origen, "On Leviticus" 14 (244 AD): "There is always an opening for recovery when, for example, some mortal guilt ["culpa mortalis"] has found us out that does not consist in mortal crime ["crimen mortale"] like blaspheming the faith, but in some vice of speech or habit. . . . Such guilt can always be repaired, and penance is never denied for sins of this kind. In the case of the graver crimes, only once is there given place for penitence; but these common things, which we frequently incur, always admit of penance, and without intermission they are redeemed."

Origen speaks of mortal sins that are not mortal crimes, such as blaspheming the faith. For ordinary mortal sins, he says, there is always penance - for the crimes, only once. We must remember that technical terms, such as mortal sin, had not yet become precise by his time.

Origen, “On Psalm 37" 6. Homily 2: "Only look around very carefully to whom you should confess your sin. First test the physician to whom you should explain the cause of your sicknesses. If he understands and foresees that such is your sickness that it should be explained in the gathering of the whole church and be cured, so that perhaps others may be edified and you yourself may more easily be healed, this is to be carried out with much deliberation and with the very skilled counsel of that physician."

Here seems to be a preliminary private confession, to decide if public penance is needed or not. This was written before 244 AD.

From both St. Cyprian and Origen we gather that there at least probably was something milder than the public penance used for the big three. Public meant, incidentally, not a public confession, but only performing the penance publicly. It could last for years, and everyone would know that sinner must have done something very great to bring that on. Yet it seems that the Sacrament was seldom used in general. For St. Augustine, in his "Confessions" 9. 13, asks prayer for his mother who died 10-15 years earlier and says he is not sure she never committed any sins after Baptism.

In those first centuries some things were understood better than now; other things were not seen at all. They saw better than people today the need of atonement, that is, of reparation for sin. This thought used to be commonplace in theology. But in recent times it has fallen out, or rather, been suppressed by those who do not like it. For the correct understanding of this doctrine, it is necessary that we recall certain truths which the Church, illumined by the word of God, has always believed.

To summarize, there was only one “repentance” available through the Church for grave sins and this was affirmed by the writings of The Shepherd of Hermas, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Ambrose and Pacian and by numerous canons of different councils of the Church. Again, these writings cover the time frame of the immediate post–apostolic age up through the sixth century demonstrating that the practice of the Church for many centuries was very different from that which is decreed by the Council of Trent later.

J.N.D. Kelly in commenting on the historical development of confession and penance summarizes all that has been said and confirms the fact that for the first centuries there existed no sacrament of private confession and priestly absolution:

“With the dawn of the third century the rough outlines of a recognized penitential discipline were beginning to take shape. In spite of the ingenious arguments of certain scholars, there are still no signs of a sacrament of private penance (i.e. confession to a priest, followed by absolution and the imposition of a penance) such as Catholic Christendom knows to-day. The system which seems to have existed in the Church at this time, and for centuries afterwards, was wholly public, involving confession, a period of penance and exclusion from communion, and formal absolution and restoration—the whole process being called exomologesis...Indeed, for the lesser sins which even good Christians daily commit and can scarcely avoid, no ecclesiastical censure seems to have been thought necessary; individuals were expected to deal with them themselves by prayer, almsgiving and mutual forgiveness. Public penance was for graver sins; it was, as far as we know, universal, and was an extremely solemn affair, capable of being undergone only once in a lifetime” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 216-217).

By the third century, we find references to admission of sinfulness by outward signs (shaved head, sackcloth) and by self-accusation.

By the fourth century in Rome, we see the beginnings of a certain standardization of the practice of penance: the sacrament took place during Lent; a person would request permission from the church to practice penance; the person would be enrolled in a group of penitents by an imposition of hands; the penitent accepted a penance, which always included abstinence from sleep, sex, and business; on Holy Thursday, the penitent would be readmitted into the community by the bishop as a sign and pledge of God's forgiveness; the former penitent was often barred for the rest of his life from becoming a deacon, holding public office, or serving in the army; and only later do we see a prudent secrecy, e.g., to protect a murderer from criminal proceedings. Additionally, only very serious and generally public sins were considered matter for the sacrament. Even St. Augustine excluded sins of thought and frailty from penance. Lists of sins considered subject to the sacrament varied greatly from place to place.

Earlier I said that penance has been called a second Baptism. It is the sacrament for those who, after Baptism, after being irrevocably claimed as God’s own sons and daughters, have sinned and found themselves estranged from God and the Body of Christ, his Church. The sacrament of Penance renews the grace of repentance and restores us to a reconciled relationship with God and his Church. It restores us to the communion with God and the Church established in Baptism. It also orients us to the Eucharist that makes present and real the fullness of communion and reconciliation given to us in the sacrificial death and life-giving resurrection of Jesus Christ. Clearly, these three sacraments, Baptism, Penance, and Eucharist, are integrally related as sacraments of new life, repentance, and communion in that life. Briefly, Baptism brings us basic forgiveness, a turning around of our lives, and belonging to Jesus Christ and his Church. Penance depends on Baptism and re-awakens or enlivens the forgiveness and belonging that had their beginning in Baptism. At the same time, Penance enables our entrance into the culminating moment of communion that is the reality of the Eucharist, communion with the sacrifice of Christ and his Body the Church. With this sense of the integral relationship of Baptism, Penance, and Eucharist as sacraments of new life, repentance, and communion, it may be helpful to focus more particularly on the Eucharist and repentance. How exactly does our repentance, our conversion of heart, our search and acceptance of God’s forgiveness, relate to our participation in the Eucharist as communion in the sacrifice of Jesus and the life of his Body, the Church?

To share in the Body and Blood of the Lord, to participate in his sacrifice, to be linked at the deepest level of our lives with other believers in the mystery of God’s redeeming love—all this assumes a converted heart that is capable of this Holy Communion. If we are truly estranged from God or our neighbor, we are incapable of communion until we repent and receive God’s forgiveness. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus says:

“If, when you are bringing your gift to the altar, you suddenly remember that your brother has a grievance against you, leave your gift where it is before the altar. First go and make peace with your brother, and only then come back and offer your gift” (5:23–24).

Similarly, Saint Paul writes:

“. . . anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of desecrating the body and blood of the Lord. A man must test himself before eating his share of the bread and drinking from the cup. For he who eats and drinks eats and drinks judgment on himself if he does not discern the Body” (1 Corinthians 11:27–30).

In light of these biblical injunctions, the Church teaches that those who are conscious of serious sin in their lives must first confess their sins in the sacrament of Penance and receive forgiveness before they receive the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Eucharist.

There are many prayers in the Eucharistic liturgy that call on God’s mercy and forgiveness. They are prayers of repentance. For example, the opening Penitential Rite includes a calling to mind of our sins along with a call for God’s mercy, “Lord, have mercy” The Gloria includes the words, “Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us.” The proclamation of the Gospel is not only a call to repentance but a moment of forgiveness, as the priest’s personal prayer at the end of the Gospel indicates: “May the words of the Gospel wipe away our sins.” The Eucharistic Prayers repentantly turn to God and seek forgiveness: “Though we are sinners, we trust in your mercy and love. Do not consider what we truly deserve, but grant us your forgiveness.” The words of institution bring forgiveness to the forefront: “. . . the blood of the new and everlasting covenant . . . will be shed . . . so that sins may be forgiven.” The Lord’s Prayer, the Lamb of God, and the “Lord, I am not worthy” in the communion rite all contain words of repentance and forgiveness. Though it does not diminish the need for the sacrament of Penance, the Eucharist is an event of new life, repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation. The Church teaches that through our participation in the celebration of the Eucharist, minor sins are forgiven.

Our participation in the Eucharist, according to the teaching of the Church, enables us to avoid sin. In other words, the Eucharist gives us strength to lead a converted or transformed way of life. Our celebration of the Eucharist summons us in the course of daily life to a fuller communion with God and one another in the Body of Christ. Saint Paul’s teaching forms the basis for these convictions. He writes in 1 Corinthians:

“When we bless ‘the cup of blessing,’ is it not a means of sharing the blood of Christ? When we break the bread, is it not a means of sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, many as we are, are one body; for it is one loaf of which we all partake” (1 Corinthians 10:16–17).

In the Eucharist, source and summit of the Church’s life and the life of individual believers, we find the culmination of our journey of repentance and communion. For here we find Christ who is our life and our peace.

Going back to history, in the Middle Ages specifically, we will see that rigorism and the tendency to make penance an unrepeatable sacrament with lifelong obligations led to penance being deferred toward the end of one's life. Also in the same era, we see the beginning of the private confession and therapeutic value of counseling in matter of penance was already recognized. Holy Fathers in the desert practiced manifestation of consciences in spiritual direction and private penance began in the sixth-century Celtic church.

So let’s talk about the private penance.

St. Gennadius of Gaul had offered the monastic life as a substitute for the strictly liturgical public penance. Those guilty of mortal crimes could: "seek pardon from the mercy of God by changing the secular habit and by expressing through correction of life the desire of religion and the yoke even in perpetual mourning." In the Celtic lands, during the seventh and succeeding centuries, the monastic life or exile became the ordinary penalty for those guilty of more heinous crimes. Thus, "he who kills a man within the walls of the monastery shall go forth cursed as an exile, or having shaved his head and beard he shall serve God all the rest of his life."

As late as the close of the tenth century, the penalty imposed in England on one who had stained himself with all kinds of sins was that he should "speedily betake himself to a monastery and there, according to instruction, let him serve God and men forever; or let him leave far behind his fatherland and do penance all the days of his life." This latter alternative of exile was known as the "profunda poeni-tentia", "wherein a layman puts aside his arms and wanders far from his homeland, unshod, spending not more than two nights in one place and is so unkempt that neither beard nor nails have known the knife” (Canon 10).

Liberal writers are amazed at the rigors of the early penitential discipline, which tended to make monks of people living in the world; in the disabilities and disqualifications visited upon penitents they see one of the main reasons why the sacrament of penance, prior to the advent of the Irish monks and English missionaries, had become almost wholly inoperative. We might well admit that the heroic labors of these monks and scholars should result in a quickening of the spirit of penance on the Continent. It does not follow that they gave to the Continental discipline a new form. Even were we to admit that the public penance was separated from the liturgy in the Celtic lands— a point that is at least debatable - it does not follow that the more awesome features of that discipline found no place. The main argument against any public penance at all in the Celtic discipline is drawn from the “Penitential” of Theodore of Canterbury, wherein it is expressly stated: "in this province reconciliation is not publicly ordered, because also there is no public penance" (I, cap. 13; ed. McNeill and Gamer, p. 195). Those who discover the origins of private penance in the Celtic discipline extend the words "in this province” to the whole of England; (e.g., Watkins, op. cit., II, 643) on the other hand whether or not public penance was practiced during the time of Theodore or before him, evidence at least of some of its traits or parts is found in the period after Theodore (English Penitential Discipline and Anglo-Saxon Law in their Joint Influence, New York, 1923, p. 78); and the reason why there was no public penance in the province of Canterbury was simply because Theodore abolished it.

Nor is this view altogether arbitrary, if we recall the following facts:

(1) Theodore came from the East, where the public penance was no longer enforced;

(2) Pope Vitalian, in appointing him to the See of Canterbury, entertained some suspicions that he might introduce contrary teachings "after the manner of the Greeks" (Ven. Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, lib. iv, c. i);

(3) The Pope's apprehensions were justified as far as the question of remarriage after divorce was concerned; (the strict teaching of Theodore on divorce, which follows closely, the code of Justinian, cf. Poenitentiale Theodori, II, 12)

John Ryan, S. J., the celebrated Gaelic scholar, says of Ireland: "Where sins were heinous a long period of public penance might be imposed before absolution. Mag Luinge in Tiree and the island of Himba were penitential stations connected with Iona. For terrible crimes like incest, exile till death in a foreign land might be demanded as a part of the penitent's satisfaction... .An imposition of hands seems to have accompanied the admission of the sinner to the state of penitence. . . .Symptomatic of the hard life they had to lead were the prohibitions against frequent washings of the hair, and the order that they should pray kneeling whilst others prayed standing, on festival days and days of relaxation. .. .When the period of penance had expired they returned to him who had imposed it, were absolved and admitted as ordinary members of the faithful to the Holy Table" (Irish Monasticism Dublin, 1931). In the earlier exomologesis, the distinguishing liturgical feature was the "prostration," which in the graded discipline constituted the grade of kneeler. Oddly enough, in Ryan's description of the Celtic public penance, the same feature is stressed.

The exile was a marked man; his sordid attire marked him for what he was, a public penitent. During the period of his exile, which might last until death, he was denied as a matter of course the delights of conjugal intimacy, and in his wanderings on the Continent he carried nothing more formidable than a pilgrim's staff. From the following canon it would appear that the more awesome disabilities that characterized the ancient discipline are still very much in evidence. A tyrant who shall kill anyone attached to a bishop "shall render to God all his inheritance and all his substance .. . and he shall go on perpetual pilgrimage, or more mildly, on a pilgrimage of thirty years; he shall live without flesh and wife and horse, on dry bread, and with meager clothing, and stay not more than two nights in one house, save only in the principal festivals or if sickness lays hold of him" (The Worcester Collection of Irish Canons, ca. 1000, can. 3; cited by McNeill and Gamer, op. cit., p. 425 f.)

It is, therefore, a bit tendentious to discover in the Celtic discipline a spirit of humaneness and understanding that was wanting to the rest of the Church during the first seven centuries. Celts were remotely responsible for the gradual disappearance of the public penance and the more awesome features attendant upon that discipline. The reason, however, is not that they introduced a new spirit of clemency; rather, the periods of fasts were so prolonged, the bodily mortifications so severe, even in the case of lesser sins, that some form of commutation became imperative. Again, since a definite penance was fixed by the penitential handbooks for each particular sin, the period of penance might easily assume astronomical proportions and prove impossible of fulfillment in the space of a lifetime. A compromise was, therefore, inevitable. It was first found in the practice of commuting the penances imposed by the priest, and / later in the practice of granting indulgences. And with this last practice, the cycle in the evolution of penance is closed. True, the public penance still remained as the normal discipline for more notorious sinners up until the middle of the thirteenth century, but the comparative ease with which a plenary indulgence could be gained soon occasioned its final disappearance.

So to review monks prepared manuals for confessors; confessions of devotion for small offenses were encouraged; satisfaction was done on a tariff system or by proxy; the practice of private confession was approved by the Third Council of Toledo ca. 690, although public penance reintroduced in Lent of 800 for murder, adultery, and perjury and at the end confession to a layman became popular and was ordinary for minor sins.

In brief, the conception of the discipline of penance as it evolved during the first twelve centuries of the Church's history, when, through the gradual introduction of the practice of granting indulgences, the discipline became fixed and comparatively uniform. The sacrament of penance was wholly private, and references in the early literature to protracted periods of penance followed by absolution were interpreted as instances of a non-sacramental discipline which pertained to the external forum. Thus, the public penance of Tertullian, Cyprian, Pacían, Augustine, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil came to be regarded as examples, admittedly severe, of a purely ecclesiastical censure, imposed by the Church after sacramental absolution was accorded, and lifted by the Church after the ecclesiastical penance was fulfilled. The final reconciliation granted at the close of the public penance affected the sinner's relations with the Church and did not reach the forum of conscience.

During the period of theological decline, the question of a private penance in the early history of the Church ceased to be a problem. References to a public penance in the documents of the past were all interpreted as instances of a purely extra-sacramental discipline. From an apologetic point of view, the position of the more conservative theologians was safe enough. The Protestants had not recovered as yet from the succession of defeats suffered at the hands of the great Catholic scholars of the golden age of positive research.

Speaking of the decline of Protestant theology during the seventeenth century, C. A. Briggs, a non-Catholic, attributes its cause neither persecution nor to war, in which the Protestants were equally adept, but to the superior formation of Catholic scholars: "It was a superior religious education not only of scholars but of priests, secular as well as regular, that gave the Roman Catholics a succession of victories for more than a century" (History of the Study of Theology, New York, 1916, II, 138 f.). The Scholastics were free, therefore, to pass over the main historical difficulties connected with the sacrament. In the middle and closing years of the last century, however, the Protestants came out of their retirement.

We have already seen something of the synthesis which was fashioned by Protestant scholars while in retirement. As a synthesis, it is new, but the individual assumptions had all been investigated and thoroughly discussed by the great positive theologians of the past. An exception might well be the learned Jesuit scholar and later cardinal, Perrone and his treatise on penance, written in the year 1842.

The descriptions "public" and "private" as they apply to penance, refer to the element of satisfaction. They do not refer to the confession, which in both disciplines was private, or to the element of reconciliation, which in both disciplines may well have been public. Therefore, when we speak of a public penance, we refer to that discipline in which the sinner, after privately confessing his sins to the bishop, was relegated to the order of penitents, there to work out his “exomologesis” in the sight of the congregation. We should note, however, that this description of the public penance applies only to the period when the discipline was intimately connected with the liturgy. No one could seriously doubt that the exile was actually a public penitent, even though his penance was not actually marked by liturgical features.

Furthermore, we can extend the notion of public penance, to any excommunication which was public in character, whether the offender became a penitent in the strict sense or not. By excommunication, we mean "separation" from the Eucharist. In the Celtic discipline the normal procedure for all sinners was that they should come to confession in the beginning of Lent and return on Holy Thursday for reconciliation. During the interval would they not be separated from the Eucharist? Again, in the penitential books of Celtic origin, separation from the Eucharist is presumed as the ordinary procedure until the whole, or at least part, of the penance is fulfilled. This is clear from the following canon of Theodore's “Penitentia”,, in which we are assured there is no reference to public penance: "Penitents according to the canons ought not to communicate before the conclusion of the penance; we, however, out of pity give permission after a year or six months" (Poenitentiale Theodori, I, 12, 4; ed. McNeill and Gamer, p. 194). It is the absence of a private penitential discipline even for lesser sins that led to the complete decadence of morals in the late fifth and sixth centuries and to the almost complete abandonment of the sacrament as the ordinary remedy for sin to be made use of in time of health.

A new era is setting in. The time has come for missionaries from the far North to awaken on the continent not only a new spirit of penance, but to give to ecclesiastical penance a new form. And it is with the advent of these scholars and missionaries that we find the first clear indications of a sacramental discipline which was private. However, we must all agree that the private penance cannot be discovered much before the fifth century, because the real evidence of a normal penitential procedure which was private in the Celtic discipline which was introduced on the continent in the seventh century.

Therefore, the private discipline had always been observed from the earliest years of the Church's history; that it was the normal procedure for those guilty of sins that may be styled intermediate, for sins that were not sufficiently grave to warrant the public penance, nor so venial as to win forgiveness without any recourse to the sacrament.

The current doctrine of today that makes confession a "legal" requirement for communion has no foundation in the Tradition of the Church and is, in fact, a distortion of the understanding of the sacrament. (Alexander Schmemann, Great Lent: Journey to Pascha, (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1996)) Lost is the understanding that this sacrament was originally meant for those who by their sins had excommunicated themselves from the Eucharist by the action of sins defined in the canons of the church (apostasy, murder, adultery, etc.) This sacrament did not apply to one's everyday sinful fallen condition in this world. On the other hand, as Alexander Schmemann stated: “It is not that these sins - the general sinfulness, weakness and unworthiness of our whole life - need no repentance and no forgiveness; the whole preparation for Communion...is indeed such repentance and a cry for forgiveness. What they do not need is sacramental confession and sacramental absolution, the latter applying only to those excommunicated”. (Alexander Schmemann, Great Lent: Journey to Pascha, (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1996))

Rather, he points out, our general sinfulness is confessed in the context of the Eucharistic liturgy.

Our entire Orthodox Christian life should be a life of repentance - not a once a month three minute post-Vesperal chat with the priest. The sacrament of Confession can be a time for one to confess his/her sins to the priest and allow the priest to recognize repeating sins or a spiritual condition that may require further pastoral/professional counseling. We must return to focusing our lives as perpetual preparation for receiving the Eucharist and fulfillment of life in the Church, the Body of Christ. This preparation will constantly reveal to us our unworthiness to partake of the "heavenly and immortal mysteries" but at the same time will motivate us to seek Christ's gift of healing and forgiveness - the Eucharist. Then will we rediscover the importance of sacramental confession, not as a legal requirement for communion, "…but a deep spiritual renewal, the true reconciliation with God and a return to his Church from which we are indeed so often excommunicated by the hopeless secularism of our existence" (Alexander Schmemann, Great Lent: Journey to Pascha, (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1996)).

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. ERICKSON, « Penitential discipline in the Orthodox Canonical Tradition », The Challenge of our Past, Crestwood, NY, 1991

I. HAUSHERR, Direction spirituelle en Orient autrefois, Rome, 1955. English Translation published by Cistercian Press.

BISHOP HIEROTHEOS OF NAFPAKTOS, Orthodox Psychotherapy. The science of the Fathers. Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, Levadia, 1994; The illness and cure of the soul in the Orthodox Tradition, Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, Levadia, 1993.

N. USPENSKY, « The Collision of Two Theologies in the Revision of Russian Liturgical Books in the Seventeenth Century »,

Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church, Crestwood, NY, 1985

G. WAGNER, « Penitential discipline in the Oriental Tradition »

Alexander Schmemann, Great Lent: Journey to Pascha, (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1996)

Council in Trullo (in 692), Canon 102

James Dallen, The Reconciling Community: The Rite of Penance, (NY: Pueblo Publishing Company, 1974)

http://en.wikipedia.org

Appendix

Quotations From Writings Of The Early Fathers From The Second To The Fifth Centuries, Demonstrating That There Was Only One Repentance, Available For Grave Sins, And It Was This Which Was Known As Confession.

The Shepherd of Hermas

‘Sir,’ if a man who has a wife that is faithful in the Lord detect in her adultery, doth the husband sin in living with her? ”So long as he is ignorant,’ saith he, ‘he sinneth not; but if the husband know of her sin, and the wife repent not, but continue in her fornication, and her husband live with her, he makes himself responsible for her sin and an accomplice in her adultery.’ ‘What then, Sir,’ say I, ‘shall the husband do, if the wife continues in this case?” Let him divorce her,’ saith he, ‘and let the husband abide alone: but if after divorcing his wife he shall marry another, he likewise committeth adultery.”If then, Sir,’ say I, ‘after the wife is divorced, she repent and desire to return to her own husband, shall she not be received?’’Certainly,’saith he, ‘if the husband receiveth her not, he sinneth and bringeth great sin upon himself; nay, one who hath sinned and repented must be received, yet not often; for there is but one repentance for the servants of God (J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker), The Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate 4.1).

Clement of Alexandria

He, then, who has received the forgiveness of sins, ought to sin no more. For, in addition to the first and only repentance from sins (this is from the previous sins in the first and heathen life - I mean that in ignorance), there is forth-with proposed to those who have been called, the repentance which cleanses the seat of the soul from transgressions, that faith may be established. And the Lord, knowing the heart, and foreknowing the future, foresaw both the fickleness of man and the craft and sublety of the devil from the first, from the beginning; how that, envying man for the forgiveness of sins, he would present to the servants of God certain causes of sins; skillfully working mischief, that they might fall together with himself. Accordingly, being very merciful, He has vouchsafed, in the case of those who, though in faith, fall into any transgression, a second repentance; so that should anyone be tempted after his calling, overcome by force and fraud, he may receive repentance not to be repented of. ‘For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.’ But continual and successive repenting’s for sins differ nothing from the case of those who have not believed at all, except only in their consciousness that they do sin. And I know not which of the two is worst, whether the case of a man who sins knowingly, or of one who, after having repented of his sins, transgresses again. For in the process of proof sin appears on each side, - the sin which in its commission is condemned by the worker of iniquity, and that of the man who, foreseeing what is about to be done, yet puts his hand to it as a wickedness. And he who perchance gratifies himself in anger and pleasure gratifies himself in he knows what; and he who repenting of that in which he gratified himself, by rushing again into pleasure, is near neighbor to him who has sinned willfully at first. For one who does again that of which he has repented and condemning what he does, performs it willingly. He, then, who from among the Gentiles and from that old life has betaken himself to faith, has obtained forgiveness of sins once. But he who has sinned after this, on his repentance, though he obtain pardon, ought to fear, as one no longer washed to the forgiveness of sins. For not only must the idols which he formerly held as gods, but the works also of his former life, be abandoned by him who has been ‘born again, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,’ but in the Spirit; which consists in repenting by not giving way to the same fault. For frequent repentance and readiness to change easily from want of training, is the practice of sin again. The frequent asking of forgiveness, then, for those things in which we often transgress, is the semblance of repentance, not repentance itself. (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1956) Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book 11, Chapter XIII).

Origen

In graver sins, the place of repentance is granted once only (Homily 15 in Leviticus 25) (As quoted in A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (London: Oxford, 1842), Volume One, Tertullian, p. 362).

Tertullian

So far, 0 Lord Christ, may it happen unto Thy servants to speak and to hear concerning the rule of repentance, as it behoveth not the hearers to sin: or let them henceforth know nothing of repentance, nothing need it. I am loath to subjoin any mention of the second (yea and the last) hope, lest, in treating of a benefit of repentance yet in reserve, I seem to shew that there is yet room for sinning. Far be it from any one so to understand me, as though, because a door is still open to repentance, it is therefore open to sin; and as though the abundance of Divine mercy gave a license to human recklessness. Let no one therefore be the less, because God is the more, good; sinning as oft as he is forgiven. Otherwise he shall find an end of escaping, when he hath not found an end of sinning. We have escaped once: suffice it to have exposed ourselves thus far to dangers, though we think that we shall again escape. Men for the most part, when delivered from shipwreck, renounce thenceforward both the ship and the sea, and by remembering the danger, honor the good gift of God, that is, their own preservation. I commend their fear, I love their modesty: they would not a second time be a burden on the Divine mercy: they are afraid of seeming to tread under foot that which they have already obtained: they shun, with assuredly a righteous care, to make trial a second time of that which they have once learned to fear. The end therefore of their venturousness is the proof of their fear: but fear in man is honor unto God. But yet that most stubborn Adversary never suffereth his malice to rest, but then rageth the most when he perceiveth that man is wholly set free; then kindleth the most, when he is being quenched. Grieve and wail he needs must, when forgiveness of sins hath been granted, because so many of the works of death in man are destroyed, and so many records of his former condemnation effaced. He grieveth, because he that was a sinner, but now a servant of Christ, shall judge him and his angels. Wherefore he watcheth, he attacketh, he besetteth him, if by any means he may strike his eyes by carnal lust, or ensnare his mind by worldly allurements, or overthrow his faith by fear of earthly power, or turn him aside from the sure way by perverse traditions. He is not wanting in offences, or inn temptations. Wherefore God seeing beforehand these poisons, although the door of pardon be shut, and the bar of Baptism interposed, hath yet suffered some opening to remain. He hath placed in the porch a second repentance, which may open unto them that knock, but now for once only, because now for the second time, and never again, because at the last time in vain. But the mind is is not to be forthwith cut down and overwhelmed with despair, if any one becomes a debtor for a second repentance. Let him indeed be loath to repent again: let him be loath to peril himself again, but to be again delivered. Let none be ashamed. If the sickness be renewed, the medicine must be renewed. Thou wilt show thyself thankful to the Lord, if thou refusest not that which the Lord offereth thee. Thou hast offended, but thou mayest yet be reconciled. Thou hast One to Whom thou mayest make satisfaction, and Him willing to be satisfied. If thou doubtest this, consider what the Spirit saith to the Churches. To the Ephesians He imputeth that they had left their first love: those of Thyatira He reproacheth with fornication and the eating of things sacrificed unto idols: the Sardicans He accuseth oof works not perfect: those of Pergamos He reproveth as teachers of perverse doctrines: those of Laodicea He upbraideth as trusting in riches: and yet He admonisheth all these to repent, and that even with threatenings. But He would not threaten the impenitent, if He would not pardon the impenitent. The more straightened then the work of this second and only remaining repentance, the more laborious its proof , so that it may not be only borne upon the conscience within, but may also be exhibited by some outward act. This act, which is better and more commonly expressed by a Greek word (exomologesis), is Confession, whereby we acknowledge our sin to the Lord, not because He knoweth it not, but inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is ordered, from confession repentance springeth, by repentance God is appeased (A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (London: Oxford, 1842), Tertullian, Of Repentance 7,8,9, pp. 361-364).

Ambrose

Deservedly are they blamed who think that they often do penance, for they are wanton against Christ. For if they went through their penance in truth, they would not think that it could be repeated again; for as there is but one baptism, so there is but one course of penance, so far as the outward practice goes for we must repent of our daily faults, but this latter has to do with lighter faults, the former with such as are graver (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Volume X, Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, Book II.10).

Augustine

When ye have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that ye may guard your Baptism even unto the end. I do not tell you that ye will live here without sin; but they are venial, without which this life is not. For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of fight sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. What hath the Prayer? ‘Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.’ Once for all we have washing in Baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which ye must needs be separated from Christ’s body: which is far from you! For those whom ye have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot out these daily prayer would suffice. In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume III, St. Augustin, On The Creed 15, 16).

But they who think that all other sins are easily atoned for by alms, yet have no doubt of three being deadly, and such as require to be punished by excommunications, until they have been healed by a greater humility of penance, namely, unchastity, idolatry, murder (Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (London: Oxford, 1847), St. Augustine, Of Faith and Works 34).

Vice, however, sometimes makes such inroads among men that, even after they have done penance and have been readmitted to the Sacrament of the altar, they commit the same or more grevious sins, yet God makes His sun to rise even on such men and gives His gifts of life and health as lavishly as He did before their fall. Although the same opportunity of penance is not again granted them in the Church, God does not forget to exercise His patience toward them (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1953), Saint Augustine, Letters, Volume III, Letter 153, p. 284-285).

Pacian

After the Passion of the Lord, the Apostles having considered and treated of all things, delivered an Epistle to be sent to such of the Gentiles as had believed; of which letter the import was as follows: The Apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we ahve heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words; so below, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. This is the whole conclusion of the New Testament. The Holy Spirit, despised in those many ordinances, hath left these injunctions to us on condition of hazard of our lives. Other sins are cured by the compensation of better works: but these three crimes we must dread, as the breath of some basilisk, as a cup of poison, as a deadly arrow: for they know how, not to corrupt only, but to cut off the soul. Wherefore niggardliness shall be redeemed by liberality, slander be compensated by satisfaction, moroseness by pleasantness, harshness by gentleness, levity by gravity, perverse ways by honesty; and so in all cases which are well amended by their contraries. But what shall the despiser of God do? What the blood-stained? What remedy shall there be for the fornicator? Shall either he be able to appease the Lord who hath abandoned Him. Is he to preserve his own blood, who hath shed another’s? Or he to restore the temple of God, who hath violated it by fornication? These, my brethren, are capital, these are mortal, crimes. What then? Must we die? Many too have in mind fallen into these sins. Many are guilty of blood; many, sold unto idols; many, adulterers. I say moreover that not hands are involved in murder, but every design also which hath driven the soul of another to death; and that not only those who have burnt incense on profane altars, but altogether every lust that wandereih beyond the marriage couch and the lawful embrace, is bound by the sentence of death. Whosoever shall have done these things after believing shall not see the face of God? But those who are guilty of so great crimes are in despair. Are we then to perish? Shall we die for our sins? And what wilt thou do, the priest? By what gains wilt thou repay so many losses to the Church? Receive the remedy, if ye begin to despair, if ye acknowledge yourselves miserable, if ye fear. Whoso is too confident is unworthy (saith the Lord) will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at My word...In one and two is the Church, and in the Church is Christ. And he therefore, who hides not his sins from the brethren, assisted by the tears of the Church, is absolved by Christ. To weep, namely, in sight of the Church, to mourn our lost life in sordid garb, to fast, to pray. to fall prostrate; to refuse luxury, if one invite to the bath; to say, if one bid to a feast, ‘These things for the happy! I have sinned against the Lord, and am in danger of perishing eternally. What have I to do with feasting who have injured the Lord?’ and besides this, to hold the poor man by the hand, to entreat the prayers of the widows, to fall down before the Priests, to ask the entreaties of the interceding Church, to assay all sooner than perish...If ye draw back from confession, remember hell, which confess ion shall extinguish for you. Remember, brethren, there is no confession in the grave; nor can penance be assigned, when the season for penitence is exhausted. Hasten whilst ye are alive, whilst ye are on the way with your adversary. Lo! We fear the fires of this world, and we shrink back from the iron claws of tortures. Compare with them the hands of ever-during torturers, and the forked flames which never die! By the faith of the Church, by mine own anxiety, by the souls of all in common, I adjure you and intreat you, brethren, not to be ashamed in this work, not to be slack to seize, as soon as ye may, the proffered remedies of salvation; to bring your souls down by mourning, to clothe the body with sackcloth, to sprinkle it with ashes, to macerate yourselves by fasting, to wear yourselves with sorrow, to gain the aid of the prayers of many. in proportion as ye have not bee a sparing in your own chastisement will God spare you. For He is merciful and long-suffering, of great pity, and repenteth Him against the evil He bath inflicted. Behold! I promise, I engage, if ye return to your Father with true satisfaction, erring no more, adding nothing to former sins, saying also some humble and mournful words, as, Father we have sinned before Thee, and are no more worthy to be called Thy sons; straightway shall leave you both that filthy herd, and the unseemly food of husks. Straightway on your return shall the robe be put upon you, and the ring adorn you, and your Father’s embrace again receive you (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Extant Works of St. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona, Treatise of Exhortation Unto Penance 9, 11, 15, 20, 24).