In his book
on the sacrament of penance, Chris Aridas, a Catholic priest, wrote the
following about its development in early Christianity:
The First
Six Centuries
In the Christian community there was always a
close relationship between the evolving understanding of sin and the
celebration of the sacrament of penance. (Please remember, I am using the term “sacrament
of penance,” realizing it is anachronistic before the twelfth century.) The
question before the Church during these early centuries was not whether God
could forgive sins after baptism, but whether the Church could or should. For
the longest time there was a great deal of hesitancy on the part of the Church
to offer a second baptism experience to the believer. This, despite the primary
Gospel focus on Christ’s victory over sin.
One must not be too harsh with our forebears,
however. Realize that there was a tension between the Church’s experience of
Matthew 18:22, which spoke of forgiving seventy times seven, and Romans 6:2,
which stated with equal certainty, “We have died to sin; how could we go on
living in it?” In addition, one must remember that the question of committing
serious sin after one was baptized was far from the initial experience of the
early community. Moved with unparalleled fervor and faith, our forebears,
embraced the demands of Christian life with passionate love. Nothing would
stand in the way of their reaching for the eternal crown of glory which would
soon be theirs, when Jesus returned in glory. Furthermore, Christianity was an
adult reality, accepted by adults as adults, and lived within the context of a
strong, adult support group known as the community of believers.
Still, where there are humans, there are
sinners. Tertullian, for example, before his conversion to Montanism,
considered that the Church’s power to forgive sins after baptism was “a second
plank after shipwreck.” The Shepherd of
Hermas (c. 140), steering a course between rigorism and complete laxity,
also allowed for forgiveness to be granted when grave sins were involved. Such
an experience, however, could occur only once in a person’s lifetime. If grave
sin were not involved, which was decided by the bishop’s discretion and
judgment, the normal forms of mortification were used to celebrate forgiveness,
namely fasting, almsgiving, prayers, etc.
By the third century, three persecutions
precipitated a more definite decision on the part of the believing community.
These persecutions—Decius (250-51), Gallus (253), and Valerian (258-58)—rocked the
Church with intensity, bringing many to martyrdom, and, unfortunately, many to
apostasy. The Church, therefore, had to determine if and how the apostates
might be reintegrated into the community of believers. Finally, led by St.
Cyprian and Pope Cornelius at the Council of Carthage (251), it was decided
that mercy and favor would be granted those who denied the faith during the
persecution. This offer was to be received only once.
Immediately a dispute arose. A Roman priest,
Novatianus, challenged the decision, thereby setting the scene for an eventual
schism. To external appearances, severity versus clemency seemed to be at
stake: should the Church forgive sins held by some to be unforgivable—apostasy,
murder, adultery? Historically, however, Novatianus’ jealousy at not being
chosen Bishop of Rome over Cornelius may have had a lot to do with his
defending the pure ideals of the Gospel! (Chris Aridas, Reconciliation: Celebrating God’s Healing Forgiveness [Garden City,
N.Y.: Image Books, 1987], 18-20)