The Myth of "Public Confession" in the Early Church
Correcting some "conventional historical wisdom"
There are few “ecclesiastical myths” as prominent as the notion that, in the early church, the Sacrament of Penance was held in public. Specifically, those who promote this myth envision an era of church history in which it was a nearly universal practice for penitents to get up in front of their congregations (consisting of both laymen and clerics) and declare their sins out loud for everyone to hear. I’m here to tell you that this simply didn’t happen… at least, not exactly.
Private Confession, Public Penance
To begin, it must be acknowledged that “public confession” isn’t a complete myth. It’s true that this sacrament used to be more of a public spectacle, with there even being an ecclesial group known as “the penitents” who would sometimes sit alongside the catechumens during Mass (in the back of the church), and leave with them before the Eucharistic Liturgy. After their period of penance was over, the penitents would also be publicly restored to the church through sacramental absolution.1 As such, many people in the church were likely aware of who had committed a grave sin just by seeing who did what during Mass. However, there’s incredibly little evidence that the actual sins of the penitents were ever made known publicly.
Instead, as Benjamin Hubbard documents,2 the Sacrament of Penance originally worked in four stages:
Private confession of sins to the bishop.
Public enrollment by the bishop in the order of penitents.
A lengthy period of works and abstention from the sacraments.
Public absolution.
The private nature of the actual confession of sins is attested to by St. Augustine of Hippo in the fourth century. In his Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed, for instance, Augustine informs the catechumens that “those whom you have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes.”3 This kind of information would have been unnecessary if it were common for the penitents to publicly announce their sins before the congregation. In another sermon, addressed to married couples suspecting one another of adultery, Augustine says,
Those who know that I know their sins should refrain from communion, in order not to be turned back from the altar rails. As for those whose sins I don’t know, I summon them before God’s judgment. They too should do penance.
St. Augustine, Sermon 392, 5.
Why would St. Augustine affirm that there are sins that he knows, that the rest of his congregation doesn’t, if the popular idea of “public confession” was practiced? Notice too that Augustine even has a desire to keep the sins private by telling his penitents not to force him to (publicly) deny them communion. The way he then goes on to speak to those “whose sins I don’t know” and urges them to likewise “do penance,” once again implies that private confession (and sometimes private penance) was the norm in the early church. Indeed, ten years after St. Augustine’s death, Pope St. Leo the Great wrote a letter to all the bishops of Campania, Samnium and Picenum, rebuking them “for requiring from penitents that a list of their offences should be read out publicly.”4 As far as I know, this is the only documented case of early Christians having penitents’ sins read out loud, and it was condemned by the reigning pope. All of this is strong evidence that not only was there not public confession in the early church, but there was even a positive desire to keep the sins of penitents a secret; a desire that seems to anticipate the idea of “the seal of confession.”
Furthermore, although it’s less explicit, I would argue that St. Augustine’s and St. Leo’s conception of private confession can likewise be found in the writings of Augustine’s teacher, St. Ambrose of Milan. In his work, Concerning Repentance, Ambrose writes against the followers of Novation, who believed that “the power of forgiving sins” was reserved to God alone and not the Church as well.5 In response to this error, the bishop of Milan cites our Lord’s teaching in John 20:22-23 that the apostles have the right to “forgive” and “retain” sins. From this he concludes, “The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and his right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins.”6 He then goes on to affirm, against the later followers of Novation (who believed that lesser sins could be forgiven by the Church but not greater ones) that Christ has “granted to His priests the power of loosing [sins] without any exception.” However, he concedes this point, “But he who has heaped up sin must also increase his penitence. For greater sins are washed away by greater weeping.”7
What we can deduce from St. Ambrose’s teaching is that it’s the priests and bishops alone who have the power not only “to forgive” sins, but also “to retain” them, or assign a specific penance depending on the severity of the sin. At no point does Ambrose attribute this power to every laymen, or Christian congregations as a whole. In fact, one of the reasons Ambrose cites for why the Novationists are actually correct that they don’t have the power to forgive sins is because,
They have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.’
St. Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, Book I, Ch. 10, 33.
Whether “the chair of Peter” refers specifically to Peter’s chair in Rome, or just the monarchical bishop in general,8 doesn’t really matter for our purposes. What’s important is that, for Ambrose, although acts of penance could be a very public spectacle,9 only the ordained successors of Peter and the apostles have the power to forgive sins and assign penances. This implies that they alone were made aware of the content of the penitents’ sins, since they alone would be judging these sins as priestly representatives of Christ and His Church.
Nor was this only a belief of the Western Church. St. John Chrysostom, a contemporary of St. Ambrose who was perhaps the greatest Eastern father and theologian of his day, wrote a beautiful explanation of the Sacrament of Reconciliation is his work, On the Priesthood,
For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw near to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests… [they] have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. For it has not been said to them, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.’ [Matthew 18:18] They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, ‘Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?’ [John 20:23]…
These others [priests] have often saved a sick soul, or one which was on the point of perishing, procuring for some a milder chastisement, and preventing others from falling altogether, not only by instruction and admonition, but also by the assistance wrought through prayers. For not only at the time of regeneration, but afterwards also, they have authority to forgive sins… priests have reconciled, not rulers and kings, but God Himself when His wrath has often been provoked against them.
St. John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, Book III, 5, 6.
Like his contemporary, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom doesn’t even hint at the notion of non-clerics participating in the Sacrament of Penance. Instead, he clearly attributes the “authority to forgive sins” to ordained ministers alone, on account of their succession from the apostles and thus their inheritance of the authority that Jesus gave to the apostles in Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23. Once again, although this isn’t an explicit witness to private, auricular confession, it’s hard to imagine how “public confession” would fit into Chrysostom’s theological paradigm. Since priests alone have the authority to judge sinners, assign penances, and forgive sins, it seems most likely that a penitent seeking forgiveness would explain what he needs forgiveness for (i.e. confess) only to the priest, not to his fellow laymen who (1) don’t need to know his sins, and (2) don’t participate in reconciling him.
Confession in the Ante-Nicene Era
So where does the myth of public confession come from? Aside from people mistakenly conflating public confession and public penance, it seems to come from a confused reading of several ante-Nicene writings that appear to support the practice. For example, one of the sources that often gets brought up in this discussion is the Didache, an early first or second century document that teaches,
In the church you shall acknowledge [or: confess] your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience... Every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions.
Didache, 4, 14.
Some readers see confession taking place “in the church” or “in the assembly” and assume that this refers to a penitent declaring their sins out loud for the entire congregation to hear. However, this is simply reading too much into the text. There are a wide variety of things this text could mean. Most likely this isn’t even referring to sacramental penance, but rather something closer to the Confiteor prayer that’s said aloud during Mass even today. However, if either of these quotes truly are referring to auricular confession, this taking place “in the church” still doesn’t necessarily mean “for everyone to hear.” It could just as easily mean that the confession took place in the midst of the congregation, but only for the presbyter to hear, which is how this sacrament is practiced in some Byzantine Churches today (while people are still in the church, but only for the priest to hear). Without more context, there just isn’t enough in the Didache to conclude one way or another.
Far more interesting in this discussion are the writings of Tertullian of Carthage, a prominent third century theologian from North Africa. Tertullian is a complicated figure, most especially because he had a “shift” in his theological worldview around AD 208 when he “converted” to Montanism, a sect which believed that the Holy Spirit was actively giving new prophecies to the Church, and emphasized “spiritual power” over ecclesiastical authority. As such, we can only turn to his earlier writings to see what the “catholic position” on confession and penance might have been during his time. However, even at that, it can be difficult to know just how much Montanism influenced Tertullian prior to his formal embrace of the movement.
In his “pre-Montanist” work, On Repentance, Tertullian explains that when a serious sinner wants to repent (which can only happen once after baptism), his interior repentance must be accompanied by certain exterior acts as well. This so-called “rite of penance” is called “exomologesis,” which is a process “whereby we confess our sins to the Lord, not indeed as if He were ignorant of them, but inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is settled.”10 This process involved a variety of public acts of humiliation, including the penitent being required,
to lie in sackcloth and ashes, to cover his body in mourning... to know no food and drink but such as is plain… to feed prayers on fastings, to groan, to weep and make outcries unto the Lord your God; to bow before the feet of the presbyters, and kneel to God’s dear ones; to enjoin on all the brethren to be ambassadors to bear his deprecatory supplication before God.
All this exomologesis does, that it may enhance repentance; may honour God by its fear of the incurred danger; may, by itself pronouncing against the sinner, stand in the stead of God’s indignation, and by temporal mortification I will not say frustrate, but expunge eternal punishments. Therefore, while it abases the man, it raises him; while it covers him with squalor, it renders him more clean; while it accuses, it excuses; while it condemns, it absolves.
Tertullian, On Repentance, Ch. 9.
Though it’s not explicit, I would concede that this is an early Christian writing from which the popular idea of “public confession” could possibly be deduced. However, I tend to agree with Bernhard Poschmann that the “confession” going on here “is not so much by word as by deed.”11 That is to say, Tertullian envisions the public process of exomologesis as itself constituting a “confession” to the Lord, an “accusation” of oneself before Him. It’s not clear to me that Tertullian believed an actual naming of the sins committed was a part of this penitential ritual at all.
Indeed, this is likely because of how radically different Tertullian’s understanding of the “second repentance” was from other ideas about penance that existed in his day, ideas that would eventually be taken up by the likes of Ss. Ambrose, John Chrysostom, and Augustine. Notice that, unlike the Saints quoted above, Tertullian doesn’t locate the power to forgive sins in the authority that Jesus gave to Peter, the apostles, and their successors. Rather, it seems Tertullian believed that it’s the actual “temporal mortification” performed by the penitent, when joined to the “supplication before God” made by the clergy and laity alike, that “expunge[s] eternal punishments” and “absolves” from sin. In this scheme, since priests aren’t acting as judges who assign penances and determine whether or not sins are forgiven or retained, it makes sense that this ritual has no private dimension to it—it’s all public, whether sins are said out loud or not. As such, I think Tertullian acts as a kind of “exception that proves the rule,” in that private confession wasn’t practiced only because the underlying theology of penance and forgiveness was drastically different.
Significantly, after formally joining the Montanist movement a decade or so later, Tertullian would explicitly denounce the “Petrine” view of sacramental penance that would go on to be embraced by the aforementioned Doctors. In his “Montanist” work, On Modesty, commenting on Christ’s commission to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19, Tertullian writes, “What, now, has this to do with the Church, and your church, indeed, Psychic? For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power [of forgiving sins] will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet… not the Church which consists of a number of bishops.”12 In other words, for Tertullian, if any men have the power to forgive sins it’s the “spiritual men” and “new prophets” that exist in the Montanist movement, not just any bishops and priests. However, at this stage, Tertullian taught that even the holiest of martyrs and confessors could absolve no one’s sins but their own.13
As Steven Alspach points out in his book, Prophets and Councils: Montanism and the Church of Carthage, Tertullian was directly responding to the beliefs of either the bishop of Carthage, Agrippinus, or the bishop of Rome, St. Callistus (likely both, in my opinion). Tertullian’s documentation of these bishops’ belief about their succession from St. Peter, and thus their inheritance of his power to forgive sins, “was, perhaps, the first time a bishop used the Petrine texts of Scripture to support his authority to bind and loose.”14 At least, that we have a written record of. We know from Eusebius that,15 a decade or two before Tertullian wrote On Modesty, “the appeal to Peter’s authority had already been used against the Roman Monatanists when Gaius debated Proclus.”16 As such, the “Petrine” view, wherein all successors of Peter and the apostles have the authority to forgive sins, is at least as old as the Montanist view that Tertullian upheld in one way or another throughout his entire life.
Indeed, I would posit that Tertullian’s views on this subject didn’t change as radically as some scholars suggest. At no point in his career did Tertullian agree with the Petrine view of Agrippinus and Callistus. As mentioned above, even in his “pre-Montanist” writings Tertullian locates the power of forgiveness not in the priesthood of Christ, but rather in the “temporal mortifications” of penitents and the “supplications” of “God’s dear ones.” This isn’t that different from his “Montanist” writings, wherein he affirms that the only sins holy men can purge are their own.17
All of this to say, it’s not as simple as, “Tertullian demonstrates that public confession was a practice of the early church.” Rather, the witness of Tertullian shows that, in the ante-Nicene era, there were competing theories about the nature of the church’s penitential system. The theory that lent itself towards something like public confession presupposed an ecclesiology based not (primarily) on apostolic succession, but rather the kind of charismatic spiritualism that developed into the Montanist movement. This theory was also historically tied to the idea that, after baptism, you could only repent of serious sins once, and then never again until death. On the other hand, the theory that would actually be embraced by the church catholic, including by Tertullian’s own theological successor, St. Cyprian of Carthage, is most coherent within a penitential system that employs private confession, as explained above.
St. Cyprian and the Petrine Model
When it comes to St. Cyprian, a few remarks are necessary. First, as Alspach fascinatingly documents, Cyprian didn’t view Tertullian as having been a schismatic or heretic. Instead, he greatly admired the man, and was deeply influenced not only by his “Catholic” writings, but by his “Montanist” writings as well.18 Cyprian’s letters are full of references to “prophecies, dreams, visions, and ecstatic experiences,”19 and the “form” such prophesying took “was distinctly ‘Montanist.’”20 While today we look back on “Tertullian the Catholic” and “Tertullian the Montanist,” for Cyprian and the late third century Church of Carthage, there was just Tertullian. This makes it all the more surprising that, despite being a staunch admirer of Tertullian, Cyprian largely accepted the very Petrine model of the penitential system that Tertullian spilled so much ink fighting against.
There are many quotes from St. Cyprian that demonstrate this. In his Epistle 72, for example, Cyprian cites Matthew 16:18-19 and John 20:23 as evidence that the power “to give remission of sins” in baptism has been given to priests and bishops alone.21 Indeed, as I’ve documented at length before, Cyprian’s entire ecclesiological vision was informed by the Petrine model, even beyond his understanding of the penitential system.22 But his true departure from Tertullian is found in places such as Epistle 11, wherein Cyprian affirms that penitents may be restored to communion after making a “confession,” doing penance, and being absolved by a cleric.23 And perhaps most intriguing for our purposes, in his Epistle 9, Cyprian writes the following,
In smaller sins sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion.
St. Cyprian, Epistle 9, 2.
Once again, by affirming that penitents are restored to communion through “the bishop and clergy,” Cyprian was indeed departing from Tertullian’s complete rejection of the Petrine model. However, there does appear to be a vestige of Tertullian’s thought in Cyprian’s explicit reference to a penitent coming “to public confession.” Was this truly a non-Montanist ecclesial setting in which sins were publicly confessed? Perhaps. But that’s not the only conclusion to draw.
The influence of Montanist thought and practice on Cyprian shouldn’t be underestimated. As noted above, Cyprian didn’t exactly view the Montanists as schismatics and heretics as we do today, rather he incorporated many of their beliefs into his own. As such, it’s entirely possible that Cyprian’s community kept around the practice of “exomologesis” described by Tertullian, which may or may not have involved a public disclosure of sins. Recall that the kind of “confession” described by Tertullian wasn’t so much a confession with words, but rather deeds of humiliation before the congregation. In fact, we know that the actual disclosure of sins would have to have happened before this process began, otherwise the clergy wouldn’t know what penance to inflict on the sinner in the first place.
Regardless, though, the ecclesiological influence of St. Cyprian’s hero Tertullian would only diminish over time. With the rise of Novation, and later Donatus Magnus, and their sects, any ecclesiology that portrayed the penitential system as limited to forgiving only certain sins, or as being in any way dependent on the charismatic character of certain men or congregations, would be completely discarded. This is why later champions of the Petrine model such as Ss. Augustine and Leo would be more explicit about the private nature of confessing individual sins, and the exclusive and plenary authority of bishops and priests to absolve sins. Indeed, in a penitential system where the only true participants in the process of forgiving sins are the penitent and the cleric, it would only be a matter of time before the entire Sacrament of Penance would become a private affair altogether.
Conclusion
So where does this leave “the myth of public confession”? On the one hand, as noted above, it’s not a complete myth. In the early church, the Sacrament of Penance was a public spectacle. It would be quite obvious who had committed a grave sin just by observing who in the congregation was being forced to do what. However, the only (arguably) true examples of “public confession” as popularly envisioned today were historically tied to beliefs about the penitential system that were unquestionably heretical. Tertullian’s belief that apostolic succession isn’t the basis of forgiving post-baptismal sins, and that mortal sins are actually forgiven through charismatic communities and elaborate public displays of penance, isn’t something that I think anyone in the modern Catholic Church wants to revive.
On the other hand, the Petrine model of the penitential system, the model that ended up winning the day in both the pre-Nicene and post-Nicene eras, really does lend itself better to the practice of private confession. This is explicitly attested to by Ss. Augustine and Leo, and implicitly by Ss. Ambrose, John Chrysostom, and others. Unless you have a theology wherein congregations of laymen actually play an important role in absolving sins, it just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to have the disclosure of individual sins be a part of the public spectacle. This is why, I believe, Pope St. Leo the Great was right to suppress the practice when it crept up, and the Church was historically correct to discard the Montanists’ penitential vision. Thus, from my perspective, anyone who invokes the “early church’s practice of public confession” in an attempt to overthrow the modern Catholic Church’s practice of private, auricular confession, is woefully mistaken.
Yes, in ancient times penance preceded absolution, unlike today where it follows.
Benjamin Hubbard, “St. Augustine’s Notion of Penance and Reconciliation With the Church,” p. 46.
St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed, 15.
See Philip Schaff, NPNF212. Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Letter CLXVIII.
“They [Novationists] affirm that they are showing great reverence for God, to Whom alone they reserve the power of forgiving sins. But in truth none do Him greater injury than they who choose to prune His commandments and reject the office entrusted to them.” (St. Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, Book I, 6).
St. Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, Book I, Ch. 2, 8.
Ibid., Ch. 3, 10.
For more on this, see my article, “What Eastern Orthodox Apologists Miss About the Papacy.”
See St. Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, Book I, Ch. 16, 90-91, wherein Ambrose seems to describe public acts of penance in detail.
Tertullian, On Repentance, Ch. 9.
Bernhard Poschmann, Penance and the Anointing of the Sick, p. 44.
Tertullian, On Modesty, Ch. 21.
See Ibid., Ch. 22.
Steven Alspach, Prophets and Councils: Montanism and the Church of Carthage, p. 74 [E-book].
Eusebius, Church History, Ch. 25.
Ibid.
“Let it suffice to the martyr to have purged his own sins: it is the part of ingratitude or of pride to lavish upon others also what one has obtained at a high price. Who has redeemed another's death by his own, but the Son of God alone? For even in His very passion He set the robber free. For to this end had He come, that, being Himself pure from sin, and in all respects holy, He might undergo death on behalf of sinners. Similarly, you who emulate Him in condoning sins, if you yourself have done no sin, plainly suffer in my stead. If, however, you are a sinner, how will the oil of your puny torch be able to suffice for you and for me?” (Tertullian, On Modesty, Ch. 22).
See Steven Alspach, Prophets and Councils, pp. 87-96 [E-book].
Ibid., p. 88.
Ibid., p. 90.
St. Cyprian, Epistle 72, 7.
For more on this, see my article, “What Eastern Orthodox Apologists Miss About the Papacy,” III. Peter’s Chair: the Origin of Church Unity.
St. Cyprian, Epistle 11, 2.
Wonderful explanation! I wish I had this back in my seminary days.
Do you by any chance know of any resources about the particular types of penances that were given throughout history? We were taught, and your article seems to affirm, that in the first centuries of the Church penances were much more weighty than they are today. For example I’ve read that for very grave sins the penance might be to go on pilgrimage to the Holy Land or Compostela. Even in the not very distant past I’ve heard that penances were much more than 5 Paters and 5 Aves. I’d appreciate any input you have.