Reconciliation—Lutheran and Catholic

William J. Cork

(Written for a course at the University of St. Thomas School of Theology, ca. 2003)

"It was above all the medieval theology of penance that compelled the Reformation," said Lutheran theologian Robert W. Jenson.[1] Despite that, Lutheran teachings on penance have been little studied by either Lutherans or Catholics. The subject has barely been touched in the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue. Many people in both communities are surprised to learn that Lutheran service books make provision for private confession. To Lutherans, the practice seems quintessentially Catholic—and alien. Yet we should not be surprised that Lutherans of the 16^th century sought to retain what they could of the practice of individual confession, for the Lutheran Reformation was in many ways a conservative movement—at least on the surface. It proceeded on the basis of the principle of justification by faith alone, retaining what was felt to be evangelical, purging all "superstition" and "works righteousness," and allowing freedom in adiaphora—things indifferent (such as ceremonies).

Compared with the puritanical reform movements of the Calvinists and the Anabaptists, Lutherans changed little of the outer structure of the Church and its worship. The Confessio Augustana insisted that Lutherans retained the mass, and even celebrated it with more devotion than Catholics; it said private absolution was to be retained as well. Upon closer examination, however, the changes were perhaps more drastic than the Lutherans at Augsburg admitted. Certainly, a lay Lutheran at High Mass might have noticed few differences. The priest still wore vestments. The altar was still draped with paraments and adorned with crucifix and candles. The choir still sang the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. During the Benedictus, the Host was elevated and bells were rung. There was still a Sakramenthaus for the reserved Sacrament. Yet a Lutheran pastor knew that he no longer said offertory prayers or even the Roman Canon; these were replaced by the bare verba institutionis, which he recited while the choir sang the Sanctus. The ceremony was there — but what Catholics of the day saw to be the heart of the Mass was ripped out. Something similar happened with penance. A rite was retained—but what it said and what it was meant to signify were very different from the Catholic Sacrament.

As pastor and confessor Martin Luther (1483-1546) was concerned with contemporary practice of penance. He was especially sympathetic towards those penitents who shared his tendency toward scrupulosity. As a professor, he entered into university debates over points raised by Duns Scotus and nominalists such as Gabriel Biel. Many questions to be settled at the Council of Trent were still open in Luther’s day, but a general consensus existed on others, e.g., the sacrament’s matter were the acts of the penitent (and that these were three: contrition, confession, and satisfaction) and its form was the words of absolution. Debate centered on questions like the relationship between contrition and forgiveness, the difference between attrition and contrition, and the nature of satisfaction. Luther’s discussion of penance revolves around these dual foci. A neurotic young religious, he was tormented by doubts and scruples, and wondered whether God could ever be satisfied—but the theories of Scholasticism gave no comfort. Out of this existential "torment of conscience" and "anfechtung" Luther gave birth to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and transforming it then into a hermeneutical principle, he shone it, laser-like, on Scholastic debates and Catholic practice. It became, for him, the articulus stantis et cadentis Ecclesiæ.

To look at the different approaches of Lutherans and Catholics to the Sacrament of Reconciliation is to enter into Luther’s psyche, the spirit of which possessed the movement that came to bear his name. His nominalist professors and foils denied the reality of universals, and in some subjects, such as Ecclesiology, he followed them readily. But in a most important way, he made of his own psychological insecurity a new universal; his experience became an archetype from which Lutheran theology developed. Once he had worked through the issues that troubled him on the subject of penance, and had come to a solution which brought him peace of mind, the development of Lutheran teaching on penance ceased. In this paper, I will explore this process, and its implications for Lutheran practice. We’ll first look at the late medieval background within which Luther’s struggle is situated. Then, we’ll examine Luther’s arguments against Catholic practice and Scholastic teaching, and how his understanding developed in the Lutheran confessions. We’ll also take a look at the first Catholic criticism of the Lutheran point of view (the Confutation of the Augsburg Confession) and the Lutheran responses to it and to Trent. Next, we will look at how Luther’s teaching has been ritualized in 20^th century American Lutheran liturgies of individual confession. Finally, we will examine the implications of Lutheran teaching and practice, and reflect on where it separates from Catholic understanding, aided by the evaluation made by the 19^th century theologian, Johann Adam Möhler.

The Late Medieval Background

Heiko Oberman has opened to us the world of late medieval thought and the influence of the Scholastics, especially the Nominalists, on the Reformation. Luther studied their teachings during his own period of struggle, and they had only intensified his anguish. He looked for comfort and peace, but found none in the teachings of Tübingen theologian Gabriel Biel (c. 1425-1495) and Bl. John Duns Scotus (d. 1308). One of the most important issues in Luther’s struggle was whether the priest actually forgives; in effect, can the word of absolution be trusted? Lombard had taught that forgiveness comes from contrition, and if this is so, the priest cannot actually forgive, but "merely indicates that justification has already taken place." Scotus had rejected this, arguing that this would make penance effective ex opere operantis rather than ex opere operato. He came up with a twofold division. Conceding one point to Lombard, he said that perfect contrition would indeed obtain justification—but apart from the sacrament. The sacrament is for those who can’t quite get to that level—the "average person" who has mere attrition, and perhaps at the barely minimal level of a willingness to go to the sacrament. This person could obtain justification in the sacrament ex pacto divino. Whereas later Catholic teaching tended to follow the path of Scotus, Gabriel Biel followed Lombard—and this was what Luther was taught.[2]

Not only did Biel accept Lombard’s contention that forgiveness comes from contrition, he maintained that the contrition which leads to justification is possible as a purely human, natural level, apart from grace. It may start out as timor servilis, but this prepares for a true contrition "which is de congruo worthy of the infusion of grace." It can be brought about by a meditation on God’s punishment, and then on his love — as should happen by listening to a sermon. He used the Gospel story of the cleansing of the lepers to prove the point. In Luke 17, we read that ten lepers cried out to Jesus saying, "Lord, have mercy!" He said to them, "Go, show yourselves to the priests." And on the way to do that, they were healed. Thus they received from the priests in Jerusalem only the confirmation of what had happened. So in the sacrament of penance, the priest’s absolution, said Biel, is merely a confirmation of what has already happened because of contrition; "the priest’s absolution itself does not grant the forgiveness of sins."[3]

Oberman comments, "Biel’s contritionism necessarily would enhance scrupulousness and despair," for how can anyone know whether he has actually produced within himself the contrition necessary? According to Oberman, Biel recognized this problem and was not satisfied with the implications; he would have preferred to accept Scotus’ idea of the parum attritus. But Biel was tied to his basic presumption that man could, apart from grace, take the first steps toward God (facere quod in se est), and this "forced him to reject this solution."[4] As a result, Biel’s students, including young Luther, were left with a situation ripe for despair. They were taught that perfect contrition is required for justification, and it comes from a purely natural power within oneself. But how do you know if you really have contrition, and not merely a preparatory attrition? You cannot trust in the word of absolution spoken by the priest, since that (according to Biel) has no power on its own and can only confirm what is already there.

That Most Worthy, Gracious, and Holy Sacrament

As we look at the first few years of Luther’s public work, we can see abundant evidence supporting Jenson’s observation regarding the centrality of the penance debate to the reform movement. Luther first achieved notoriety in the controversy over indulgences in 1517, which dealt with the question of the "temporal punishment" of sin after absolution. In 1518 he attacked Scholasticism, and its reliance upon Aristotle rather than Scripture—he was particularly concerned with what they had to say about penance, and how the sinner was to obtain justification before God. In The Sacrament of Penance in 1519, Luther began to look closely at the Sacrament itself, and he expanded the examination into a full-blown attack a year later. In this 1519 work, though, he began by praising it as "that most worthy, gracious, and holy sacrament … which God gave for the comfort of all sinners when he gave the keys to St. Peter in behalf of the whole Christian Church." It consists of "forgiveness of sin, comfort and peace of conscience, besides joy and blessedness of heart over against all sins and terrors of conscience, as well as against all despair and assaults [anfechtung] by the gates of hell."[5] These benefits, said Luther, come strictly from faith in the promise: "Your contrition and works may deceive you, and the devil will very soon overturn them in [the hour of] death and of temptation [anfechtung]. But Christ, your God, will not lie to you, nor will he waver…" Because it is the word of promise that is effective, and not any power of the minister, the word may be spoken by any Christian: "each individual Christian—even a woman or child—does as much. For any Christian can say to you, ‘God forgives you your sins, in the name,’ etc., and if you can accept that word with a confident faith, as though God were saying it to you, then in that same faith you are surely absolved."[6]

This emphasis on faith in the promise does not discourage works, he said, but puts them in their proper place. "Just so no one accuses me again of forbidding good works, let me say that one should with all seriousness be contrite and remorseful, confess and do good works. This I maintain, however, as best I can: that in the sacrament we let faith be the chief thing…."[7] Luther dismissed the standard threefold schema of the penitent’s acts, for he felt this perpetuated a misguided focus on human performance (Remember the teaching of Biel that these are possible without grace—and bring forgiveness without grace). For Luther, the sole focus of our faith is the Word. This is necessary because the sacrament is meant to comfort those "whose conscience is troubled, uneasy, erring, and terrified, who would gladly be loosed from their sin and be righteous, but who do not know where to begin. For these are the ones who likewise have true contrition, indeed they are too contrite and fainthearted." So we shouldn’t confuse them, but should make the matter as simple and clear as possible. One who has true faith cannot err "whether in contrition, confession, or satisfaction; and even if he does err, it does him no harm. Where there is no faith, however, there neither contrition, nor confession, nor satisfaction is adequate."[8]

Luther next addressed the traditional distinction between mortal and venial sins, and its implications for the practice of confession.

There has never yet been a teacher, nor will there ever be one, learned enough to give us a dependable rule for distinguishing venial from mortal sins, except in such obvious offenses against God’s commandments as adultery, murder, theft, falsehood, slander, betrayal, hatred, and the like. … Therefore private confession is no place for [reciting] sins other than those which one openly recognizes as deadly, those which at the time are oppressing and frightening the conscience. For if one were to confess all his sins, he would have to be confessing every moment, since in this life we are never without sin. Even our good works are not pure and without sin.

Yet he conceded that even those with no serious sins on their conscience could benefit from hearing the word of absolution, which remains true, and which can help strengthen faith, for by hearing the word of promise "one would grow accustomed to believing in the forgiveness of sins." This shows that what fundamentally mattered for Luther was not the details of sins, or their circumstances, but the sinner’s acknowledgment of his sinfulness, and his faith in the promise.[9]

In The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), Luther attacked the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church, per se.[10] His doctrine of justification by faith alone, which was developing at the time of the 95 Theses, was now complete, assuming its place as a tool to criticize Catholic teaching and practice. The "beginning of our salvation is a faith which clings to the Word of the promising God, who, without any effort on our part, in free and unmerited mercy takes the initiative and offers us the word of his promise."[11] Contrary to 20^th century evangelicalism, Luther did not see this principle as opposing sacraments as such. Rather, following Augustine, he held that in a sacrament, this Word of promise is united with a material element, and becomes a "visible Word."

…God does not deal, nor has he ever dealt, with man otherwise than through a word of promise, as I have said. We in turn cannot deal with God otherwise than through faith in the Word of his promise. He does not desire works, nor has he need of them…. But God has need of this: that we consider him faithful in his promises [Heb. 10:23], and patiently persist in this belief, and thus worship him with faith, hope, and love.[12]

So, Luther said, the substance of the mass is the word of Christ ("Take and eat") added to the sign of eating and drinking; "nothing else is needed for a worthy holding of mass than a faith that relies confidently on this promise, believes Christ to be true in these words of his, and does not doubt that these infinite blessings have been bestowed upon it."[13] Likewise, "in baptism, to the words of promise he adds the sign of immersion in water."[14] In both, it is the Word of promise that gives assurance and comfort.

Luther’s definition of a sacrament demanded a clear Scriptural mandate, however; not finding this in every case, he concluded, "I must deny that there are seven sacraments, and for the present maintain that there are but three: baptism, penance, and the bread."[15] He went further, and claimed that even penance was not a sacrament "strictly speaking," for though Christ did indeed commission the apostles to forgive sins, penance "lacks the divinely instituted visible sign, and is, as I have said, nothing but a way and a return to baptism." But because it bears the Word of promise, he was willing to call it a sacrament in an analogous sense.[16] Like Baptism and the Eucharist, absolution underscores for us that the initiative in salvation is always God’s. Man, bound in sin, has nothing in him to "work out," and thus can only be saved by grace alone, through God sending his Son to die for us. The Word tells us that in Christ sins are forgiven. This is a single promise, spoken once from Calvary, but it is spoken to us individually and concretely in the preaching of the Gospel and in the sacraments. The first place we hear it is in Baptism, which is for Luther the sum and substance of the Christian life; penance can be understood only in reference to it. Absolution is, in fact, only be a restatement of the promise that was first made to us in Baptism. This explains the ambivalence in Luther as to whether it is a third sacrament, or simply a reminder of the first.

…[T]he truth of this divine promise, once pronounced over us, continues until death, so our faith in it ought never to cease, but to be nourished and strengthened until death by the continual remembrance of this promise made to us in baptism. Therefore, when we rise from our sins or repent, we are merely returning to the power and the faith of baptism from which we fell, and finding our way back to the promise then made to us, which we deserted when we sinned. For the truth of the promise once made remains steadfast, always ready to receive us back with open arms when we return.[17]

Baptism is not, as Tertullian said, "the second plank after shipwreck," as if the first plank had failed us. Rather, the promise of the Gospel is itself the ship which carries us, and should we abandon it and rashly jump overboard, it is no plank but the ship itself that will remain to carry us to life.[18]

Going beyond what he had said in The Sacrament of Penance, Luther next explicitly denied that penance consists of the acts of the penitent (contrition, confession, and satisfaction) and absolution, reducing it to contrition and faith (corresponding to his dialectic of Law and the Gospel).

A contrite heart is a precious thing, but it is found only where there is an ardent faith in the promises and threats of God. Such faith, intent on the immutable truth of God, makes the conscience tremble, terrifies it and bruises it; and afterwards, when it is contrite, raises it up, consoles it, and preserves it. Thus the truth of God’s threat is the cause of contrition, and the truth of his promise the cause of consolation, if it is believed.[19]

He brushed aside the Scholastic debates about the distinction between contrition and attrition, and lampooned the idea that attrition "is converted into contrition by the power of the keys, of which they know nothing."[20]

But even now Luther was unwilling to abandon private confession. He thought it "useful" as a "cure for distressed consciences." "For when we have laid bare our conscience to our brother and privately made known to him the evil that lurked within, we receive from our brother’s lips the word of comfort spoken by God himself. And, if we accept this in faith, we find peace in the mercy of God speaking to us through our brother."[21] Notice that in keeping with what he had said the previous year about the ability of anyone to forgive, he says nothing about priesthood. Though "useful" or even "necessary," confession is not an obligation, but should be an option for "distressed consciences." Luther wanted the person confessing to feel completely free—the one who hearing a confession should place no burdens on the penitent, not even to inquire about the circumstances. "My advice would be to ignore all ‘circumstances’ whatsoever. With Christians there is only one circumstance—that a brother has sinned." The idea of the confessor as a kind of judge is thus completely eliminated. As a consequence, Luther then eliminated the practice of "reserved cases" that could only be absolved by the bishop or the pope.[22]

Turning to satisfaction, Luther said that that properly understood it is simply "the renewal of a man’s life," but it had been distorted so that it became another human work, with no room for faith in Christ.

Moreover, how many, I ask, are possessed with the notion that they are in a saved state and are making satisfaction for their sins, if they only mumble over, word for word, the prayers imposed by the priest, even though meanwhile they never give a thought to the amending of their way of life! They believe that their life is changed in the one moment of contrition and confession, and there remains only to make satisfaction for their past sins.

This was exacerbated by the practice of absolving sinners before the satisfaction was completed. The sinner could imagine contrition to be a completed act, and then he would focus on a perfunctory completion of his "penance." "Absolution ought rather to follow on the completion of satisfaction, as it did in the early church, with the result that, after completing the work, penitents gave themselves with much greater diligence to faith and the living of a new life."[23]

Lutheran Confessions and Catholic Response

The writings by Luther that we have looked at so far, while demonstrating the development of Luther’s personal beliefs, have no authority over Lutherans. That status is reserved solely for the confessions contained within the Book of Concord; and even these vary in weight. The most influential of these documents has been Luther’s Small Catechism (1529), studied by generations of confirmation students in every corner of the Lutheran world. The treatment of confession in the Small Catechism is pretty simple, since families are the intended audience. First, Luther identified two parts of penance: confession and absolution. He then limited what should be brought to the confessor; while to God we confess our general sinfulness, "before the confessor we are to confess only those sins of which we have knowledge and which trouble us." One should prepare by examining one’s life in light of the Ten Commandments and the duties that come with your state in life. If the person has no serious sins,

…they are not to worry, nor are they to search for or invent further sins and thereby turn confession into torture. Instead mention one or two that you are aware of in the following way: "In particular I confess that I cursed once, likewise that one time I was inconsiderate in my speech, one time I neglected this or that, etc." Let that be enough.

If you are aware of no sins at all (which is really quite unlikely), then do not mention any in particular, but instead receive forgiveness on the basis of the general confession, which you make to God in the presence of the confessor.

The sinner is asked if he believes that the word of absolution is that of God, whereupon the pastor says, "‘Let it be done for you according to your faith.’ And I by the command of our Lord Jesus Christ forgive you your sin in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Go in peace."[24]

In the Augsburg Confession of 1530, the Lutheran princes gave Emperor Charles V a systematic presentation of their beliefs; this confession and the Small Catechism are the only documents in The Book of Concord accepted by all Lutheran churches as normative. It has a different tone from Luther’s incendiary pamphlets and sermons, as it was drafted by his more gentle disciple, Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), for the sake of politicians. And as such it was a consensus document, which was meant to show the Catholic substance of the Lutheran beliefs, and certainly not meant to be a sort of "Declaration of Independence."

Article 11 affirms "that private absolution [privata absolutio] should be retained and not abolished. However, it is not necessary to enumerate all misdeeds and sins, since it is not possible to do so. Psalm 19[:12]: ‘But who can detect their errors?’"

Article 12 defines repentance as "nothing else than to have contrition and sorrow, or terror about sin, and yet at the same time to believe in the gospel and absolution that sin is forgiven and grace is obtained through Christ. Such faith, in turn, comforts the heart and puts it at peace. Then improvement should also follow, and a person should refrain from sins."[25] The Latin text[26] puts it slightly differently: "Now, properly speaking, repentance consists of two parts: one is contrition or the terrors that strike the conscience when sin is recognized; the other is faith, which is brought to life by the gospel or absolution."[27]

Article 25, in the section on "abuses corrected," reiterates the Lutheran belief that "no one should be compelled to enumerate sins in detail. For this is impossible."[28] And it cites a gloss in Gratian that confession was instituted by the Church rather than by a scriptural command.[29]

Catholic theologians prepared a critique of the Augsburg Confession that was also presented to Charles V, The Confutation of the Augsburg Confession. This, in turn, is the document which prompted Melanchthon’s subsequent Apology of the Augsburg Confession. The Confutation makes interesting reading because it gives us a glimpse of how Catholics were trying to wrestle with the competing claims of the Scholastics and of Luther, and working toward a consensus of Catholic teaching that will come at Trent.

The Confutation accepts the affirmation of private absolution in AC 10, but says, "their subjects should be compelled to make an annual confession as is required by canon law in Omnis utriusque sexus." "Second, their subjects should be admonished regularly by their preachers to examine their consciences diligently and, even though it is not possible to confess every sin, to confess all the sins of which they are aware. With regard to those that have been forgotten, let them confess in general and say with the psalmist: ‘Clear me, Lord, from hidden faults,’ Psalm 19[:12]."

The Confutation rejects the division of penance into two parts in AC 12, for "they put themselves in opposition to the universal church, which from the time of the apostles [emphasis added; it ignores the AC citation of the Gratian gloss] has held and believed that penance consists of three parts: contrition, confession, and satisfaction." Since this teaching had already been condemned by Leo X, "this part of the article cannot be admitted under any circumstances." Catholics, it says, must also reject the idea that faith is the second part of penance, for faith is assumed to be already operative in the life of the penitent— "for unless a person believes, that person will not repent." (This is a critical observation. Where the Lutherans assume that all who are contrite will feel the "terrors of conscience," the Catholics assume that the sacrament is for people who have faith.)

Finally, the Confutation rejects the teachings of AC about satisfaction. It does not address the teachings of the Scholastics to whom the Lutherans were objecting, but cites Scriptural invocations to repent, and do "deeds consistent with repentance"(which the Lutherans agreed were necessary). The Confutation quotes Leo the Great who refers to "a healing act of satisfaction" (the concept of healing in reference to the sacrament is rarely mentioned by Lutherans), and Ambrose who offered this pastoral advice, "Let the extent to which the conscience is troubled dictate the severity of the penance."[30]

Melanchthon’s Apology of the Augsburg Confession is a rebuttal of the criticisms of the Confutation. In article 11, he deflects the Confutation’s reference to Lateran IV ("we are aware of it"), saying most Lutherans go to confession several times a year, and those who do not are excluded from Communion. Melanchthon asserts that a rigid adherence to an "Easter duty" ignores the fact that not everyone is ready at the same time; and if everyone did come at the same time, the lines would be too long to handle. But primarily, he says, they object to the requirement that an integral confession include the "circumstances," for this serves only to frustrate the scrupulous. "What labyrinths and tortures this created for the most circumspect minds! For these terrors had no effect on wild and profane people." And he restates the Lutheran claim Lateran IV "prescribes the impossible, namely, that we are to confess every sin. For it is evident that we will neither remember nor understand most of our sins." (But of course, Lateran IV and the Confutation both agreed with that point.)[31]

In article 12, Melanchthon says the Confutation misses the point; "while insisting on this enumeration" of the three parts of the sacrament "under the pretext of divine command, they speak very coldly about absolution, which really is by divine command. They imagine that the sacrament confers grace ex opere operato without a proper disposition on the part of the recipient. There is no mention of faith that grasps absolution and consoles the conscience." And this, as we saw, Luther believed to be the heart of the sacrament, especially in comforting those afflicted by the "terrors of the conscience." Of satisfaction, Melanchthon says, "here their discussions become really confusing"—and then he proceeds to attack a straw man. They say

… satisfactions ought to be works of supererogation. These consist of the most stupid observances, like pilgrimages, rosaries, and similar observations, none of which have the command of God. Then, just as they buy off purgatory with satisfactions, so they also devised a way to buy off satisfactions, which turned out to be very profitable. For they sell indulgences, which they interpret as the remission of satisfactions. They collect this revenue not only from the living but even more from the dead. They buy off the satisfactions for the dead not only with indulgences but also with the sacrifice of the Mass. In short, the subject of satisfactions is endless. Beneath these … the teaching of the righteousness by faith in Christ and Christ’s benefits lies buried.[32]

As he continues, some of the objects of his attack become clearer. "Some of them imagine that the power of the keys does not remove guilt but merely changes eternal punishments into temporal ones." This was the teaching of Richard of St. Victor. "Others (the more cautious ones) imagine that the power of the keys forgives sins in the eyes of the church but not before God." This was taught by Gabriel Biel, based on Lombard.[33]

He reiterates the Lutheran teaching that penance has two parts of penance, contrition and faith. "We will not object if someone wants to add a third part, namely, the fruits worthy of repentance." He restates the Lutheran rejection of the argument over contrition vs. attrition, saying, "We dismiss those idle and endless discussions about whether we are sorry because we love God or because we fear punishment. We say that contrition is the genuine terror of the conscience that feels God’s wrath against sin and grieves that it has sinned."[34] And though he had seemed to give concession to "the fruits worthy of repentance" as a part of the sacrament, he then rejects any idea of satisfaction. "Besides, since it is most certain that the forgiveness of sins is without cost or is given freely on account of Christ, it follows that satisfactions are not required. Moreover, the gospel contains the command to remit sins freely, not to impose punishments and new laws, nor to impose part of the punishments and remit the rest."[35]

The definitive Catholic response to the Lutheran teaching came with the fourteenth session of the Council of Trent, in 1551. Brief mention should be made of the thorough analysis of its decrees from a Lutheran perspective by Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), in his Examen Concilii Tridentini. He made no new contributions to Lutheran theology of penance, but he did delineate clearly the differences between the two parties. Whereas the Augsburg Confession hoped for conciliation, Chemnitz and Trent appear to have accepted (and anathematized) permanent division. Chemnitz reaffirmed that penance is not a sacrament "strictly speaking." But since in it the gospel is applied to the individual, he would "not object when for this reason, in this respect, for this cause, and in this sense [emphasis mine] repentance is called a sacrament."[36] Maintaining Luther’s distinction of Law and Gospel, he saw the Law as invoking "terrors of conscience" which are quieted by the word of absolution,[37] which is but a restatement to an individual of that Gospel which is publicly announced to all. It is provided "on account of the weakness of faith, for fuller and stronger consolation."[38] He said that the acts of the penitent cannot be the "external element" of the sacrament "because no one can be sure whether he has these actions in the required degree, the conscience always remains in doubt and uncertain with respect to reconciliation."[39] He admitted that they agreed with Lutherans that contrition "includes not only a ceasing from sin and the intention of beginning a new life but also hatred of the old and a detestation of sin," but was afraid that "snares are hidden under the words."[40] He reiterated the old Lutheran charge that Lateran IV’s call for an "exact enumeration" must lead to "doubt and despair," "for it is certain that we neither understand nor remember very many sins, according to the word: ‘Who can discern his errors? Cleanse Thou me from hidden faults.’"[41] And yet that was the very text Trent cited in agreeing with the Lutherans!

20^th Century Lutheran Confession Rites

Though private absolution was retained in the Lutheran churches for some period of time after the Reformation, it slowly fell into disuse. By the early nineteenth century it had all but disappeared. Samuel S. Schmucker, founder of Gettysburg College and Gettysburg Seminary, reported that all that was left of it was that in some places the members of the church would visit the pastor prior to the periodic communion services (no longer weekly), to discuss their spiritual state and to record their name in the register of those who would be admitted to communion; but even this vestige had vanished in other places.[42] This would seem to logically follow from the principles consistently held by Luther and his 16^th century students. For while Luther had kept the name of absolution, Lutheranism had, as Schmucker put it, "entirely changed its nature." It was "merely … a custom of the church," "void of scriptural authority," and the priest had only the same power as any other Christian, of speaking the Gospel.[43]

Nevertheless, efforts were made as the nineteenth century went on to recover the practice, though retaining Luther’s theology. In the 1917 Common Service Book, and its companion, the 1918 Occasional Services, we see how this played out in practice.

An "Order for Public Confession" is appointed for use as "a Vesper Service … the afternoon or evening of the Friday or Saturday preceding the Holy Communion, when all who propose to commune should be present."[44] The liturgy of readings, sermon, and a general confession is followed by a twofold exercise of the "power of the keys." The pastor says first to those who repent and believe the Gospel, "As a Minister of the Church of Christ, and by His authority, I therefore declare unto you who do truly repent and believe in Him, the entire forgiveness of all your sins: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Then comes this warning to the impenitent:

On the other hand, by the same authority, I declare unto the impenitent and unbelieving, that so long as they continue in their impenitence, God hath not forgiven their sins, and will assuredly visit their iniquities upon them, if they turn not from their evil ways, and come to true repentance and faith in Christ, ere the day of grace be ended.[45]

The Occasional Services (a handbook for the use of the pastor) contains an "Order for Private Confession and Absolution" which is an abbreviated version of the public rite, consisting of a formula for general confession (or "the Penitent may use his own words"), absolution, and blessing. As stipulated by the 16^th century Lutherans, this is not mandated, but is for "persons who are burdened in conscience on account of sin."[46]

The liturgy in current use among most North American Lutherans, the 1978 Lutheran Book of Worship, has three separate penitential rites: a "Brief Order for Confession and Forgiveness" which may precede any Eucharist; a service of "Corporate Confession and Forgiveness"; and an order for "Individual Confession and Forgiveness."

The "Brief Order" is used in all Lutheran churches, and is almost always used at the beginning of the Sunday service of Holy Communion. Some of its prayers are adapted from the Book of Common Prayer, and had appeared in the 1958 Service Book and Hymnal. Following a general confession, the pastor has the option of giving either a declarative absolution ("As a called and ordained minister of the Church of Christ and by his authority, I therefore declare to you the entire forgiveness of all your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the @ Son, and of the Holy Spirit."), or a descriptive formula ("In the mercy of almighty God, Jesus Christ was given to die for you, and for his sake God forgives you all your sins. To those who believe in Jesus Christ he gives the power to become the children of God and bestows on them the Holy Spirit").[47]

The service for "Corporate Confession" is used in few parishes; I’ve only seen it used at seminary. The service begins with the sign of the cross ("in remembrance of baptism"), a hymn, an opening prayer taken from the Book of Common Prayer, Psalm 51, and a formula of general confession. The absolution is said to all: "As a called and ordained minister of the Church of Christ and by his authority, I therefore declare to you the entire forgiveness of all your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the @ Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Then, "Those in the congregation may come forward and kneel before the altar. The minister, laying both hands on each person’s head, addresses each in turn: ‘In obedience to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins.’" The service concludes with a hymn of praise, prayers of intercession, the Our Father, a blessing and dismissal.[48]

I never used the order for "Individual Confession and Forgiveness," and I know of no Lutheran pastors who have. We received no training in its use. It begins with the pastor asking, "Are you prepared to make your confession?" Upon an affirmative, "I am," pastor and penitent say together Psalm 51:16-18, 1-2. The pastor then says, "You have come to make confession before God. In Christ you are free to confess before me, a pastor in his Church, the sins of which you are aware and the sins which trouble you." "The penitent confesses those sins which are known and those which disturb or grieve him/her," and may begin with something like, "I confess before God that I am guilty of many sins. Especially I confess before you that …. [ellipses in original] For all this I am sorry and I pray for forgiveness. I want to do better." There is opportunity for conversation and "admonition and comfort from the Holy Scriptures." They say Ps. 51:1, 11-13, and then the pastor says, "Do you believe that the word of forgiveness I speak to you comes from God himself?" "Yes, I believe." Laying both hands on the head of the penitent, the pastor says, "God is merciful and blesses you. By the command of our Lord Jesus Christ, I, a called and ordained servant of the Word, forgive you your sins in the name of the Father, and of the @ Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Psalm 103:8-13 is said, followed by dismissal, and optional sign of peace. There is no mention of penance or satisfaction — the order clearly ritualizes Luther’s insistence that there are two parts: confession and faith.[49]

Two books co-authored by Philip H. Pfatteicher elucidate the rites, the 1979 Manual on the Liturgy and the 1990 Commentary on the Lutheran Book of Worship.[50] The Manual on the Liturgy suggests that "Corporate Confession" might be used to settle disputes in families or in the parish, with time being spent within the liturgy to discuss the matters which divide, and attempt reconciliation. His description suggests that he seems unsure whether he wants it to be a liturgical rite or a group therapy session.[51] And the absolution seems to have primarily a psychological intent. As we have seen, "The absolution is in two parts." During the first, "When the minister makes the sign of the cross over those being absolved, they may also make the sign of the cross on themselves to personalize the absolution and make it their own.… Then the absolution is persona iear these words spoken directly to them and perhaps even more importantly may need to see the absolution being granted individually to those with whom t hey may have been at variance. The individual absolution is a personal application of what has been granted to the assembly in the general absolution.[53]

The same might well be said of the entire rite of "Individual Confession and Forgiveness." It is an optional rite extending to an individual the forgiveness he has already received in the Gospel proclaimed to the entire congregation, for the benefit of those who still remain troubled and need a "personal application." Pfatteicher quotes the Small Catechism’s restriction of the rite to "only those sins of which we have knowledge and which trouble us."[54] "The intent of the invitation and of the suggested form of confession is to avoid excessive enumeration of every sin the penitent might be able to recall (or indeed imagine or invent). It is those sins which trouble the penitent which are to be confessed in Individual Confession and Forgiveness."[55] Thus, not only is Integral Confession not required, it is apparently discouraged.

Contrary to Luther, Pfatteicher says, "Only the ordained ministers of the church may serve as confessors." But he is understood as merely the servant of the word which declares forgiveness; there is nothing suggesting a role as "physician" or "judge." Little is said about the ministry of hearing confessions except that "It is an obligation not to be taken lightly. Those who hear the confessions of others should themselves be under the discipline of regular confession. Confessors should have their confessors too, to set an example for the people and so they can understand better the practice that they encourage others to participate in."[56]

The Critique of Möhler

Johann Adam Möhler of Tübingen (1796-1838) provides a comparison of Catholic and Protestant thought in Symbolik, his magnum opus, which remains unsurpassed as an objective and thorough Catholic critique of Lutheran thought. He identifies a basic difference between Catholicism and Lutheranism which colors their respective teachings on penance. Catholicism is optimistic; it expects that progress in the Christian life is possible. While original sin was eradicated at baptism, we continue to turn back to sin, and in so doing we turn our back on the grace we received in baptism. This requires a new act of reconciliation, and this is what we obtain in the sacrament of penance; it forgives sin and restores our communion with God. It is more than that, however. "It is for all believers an institution of fatherly instruction, exhortation, correction, quieting, and solace." Lutheranism, on the other hand, holds that original sin remains after baptism. All sins we might commit later are "but the particular forms of original sin, not extirpated, but only forgiven in baptism." Since salvation is entirely the work of God, without human cooperation, "baptism not only imparts the assurance, that all our sins committed before baptism are forgiven, but gives the pledge of the remission of all the sins to be afterwards committed." Baptism is thus (ironically) a sort of "letter of indulgence sealed by God for one’s own life, and therefore, in every transgression, we need only recall and resuscitate in our minds the promises recorded in that letter; and this is what the Reformers call a regressus ad baptismum."[57]

Lutheranism places all its emphasis upon the word of absolution, which is for it "nothing more than a declaration that sin is forgiven," which serves to calm the "‘terrors of conscience’ (conscientiæ terrores) that come with failure to fulfill the Law." But we can learn a lot by looking more closely at these "terrors of conscience." As Möhler sees it, they "are but the dread of sensible evil." They "involve no detestation of sin, as such, and contain no trace of the tenderer emotions"—they are but the old "fear of hell." This may indeed drive someone to see their need of Christ, but Möhler would see this as inferior to a contrition which comes from "a desire of truth," and "first embraces the Son of God manifested in the flesh." Luther’s experience, while it was real to him, is not universal—but that is its claim. It is would "deduce a general rule from the experience of [Luther’s] own individual feelings." And having then been comforted with the promise of the Gospel, "the whole penitential act is terminated." That is all that Lutheranism has to say about the Christian life. The Catholic, says Möhler, must see this as an impoverished form of Christianity, and "charge it with holding down the believer to an extremely low grade of the spiritual life, allowing him scarcely a perception of the fulness [sic] of the riches of evangelical grace, while it is very far from expressing the biblical idea of metanoia."[58]

Möhler notes that Trent does not see faith as something that follows contrition and is merely a way to connect with a source of comfort. Rather, faith is itself the basis of contrition. The Christian life is graced by the work of the Holy Spirit from first to last, and it is his operation upon us which leads us to turn from sin in repentance. Rather than being a mere terror in the face of the law, contrition for the Catholic is "a profound detestation of sin, springing out of the awakened love for God, with the conscious, deliberate determination never more to sin…."[59] But for the Lutheran, such a determination is futile. And in that light, argues Möhler, it should come as no surprise that confession died out among Lutherans. However much the Reformers praised confession, "this institution could not long endure." People were taught to do something which their theologians told them was impossible: "they were to confess, and yet the sin surviving in their soul closed their lips; they were, by confession, to free their breast from sin, and yet they could never properly extricate themselves from its entanglements."[60]

True contrition, however, requires a turning from sin and a determination to sin no more. Doing so is the essence of satisfaction—and this was one of the first aspects of the sacrament that Luther eliminated. But this is fundamental to the Catholic understanding of both the sacrament, and the Christian life. "The cure that follows needs the most careful attention, and the still debilitated moral powers require the application of strengthening remedies. The priest, who has learned to know the spiritual state of the sinner, ordains, accordingly, the fitting remedies—pious exercises, calculated to keep up his self-vigilance, and to impart to the will a safe, lively, and vigorous impulse, in the direction it most needs."[61] We’ve seen how the Lutheran theologians never speak of healing, nor does the Lutheran sacrament call one to new life. Möhler would say that is perfectly in accord with the Lutheran first principle of justification by faith alone. He asks,

If satisfaction in the form of restitution were made a condition to the forgiveness of sins, what was this but to declare works as necessary to salvation? If the Protestants exacted satisfactions as spiritual remedies, they would give countenance to the principle that man must co-operate with God, and that the forgiveness of sins depended on sanctification If they declared satisfaction, in the proper sense of the word, to form an integral part of Penance; then this were tatamount [sic] to the opinion, that the just man could fulfil the law ….[62]

Final Reflections

Despite the fact that Lutherans retain an order of private confession, it is clear that the rite speaks of a theology of penance which has traveled far from its Catholic roots. One place we can see the difference clearly is in the question of general absolution. For Lutheranism, as we have seen, general absolution is the norm: it is the regular practice of declaring to the assembly God’s promise to forgive the contrite. The "Brief Order" begins most Communion services; the pastor speaks a declarative absolution to the entire congregation following communal recitation of a general confession of sin. On special occasions, there may be a service of "Corporate Confession and Forgiveness," which has the same pattern of general confession followed by general absolution. This service has the added option that those who feel the need may come forward to hear the absolution again, spoken to them individually by pastor as he lays hands on their head. It is clear from the rubrics that this is an exception to the norm—a concession to the weak in faith, who cannot trust the general word, and who must hear it spoken to them. This pattern is repeated in the service of "Individual Confession," which demands no more from the individual than the same general admission of sinfulness to get the same declaration of absolution. It is yet another concession to those who, because of the "torments of conscience," have difficulty believing the news of their liberation. They are instructed, though, to only mention those sins which really bother them, and otherwise to be content with a general confession. Focus on the absolution, is the message. Believe the word, however it comes to you. Whether you confess in specific or in generalities doesn’t matter.

Does this not reduce the sacrament to a dispenser of what Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer termed, "cheap grace"? He begins The Cost of Discipleship with a diatribe against this diminution of grace to "cheapjacks’ wares."

The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. …

Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian "conception" of God. …. In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin. Cheap grace therefore amounts to a denial of the living Word of God, in fact, a denial of the Incarnation of the Word of God.

Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. …who departs from sin and from whom sin departs. …

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the Cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.[63]

Despite the fact that Bonhoeffer was himself a Lutheran, he places his finger on the problem of the Lutheran approach to penance. Granted, Bonhoeffer thinks he is attacking an abuse, not the substance of the Evangelische position. But the apple has not fallen far from the tree. The Lutheran position cannot help but lead to the position Bonhoeffer scorns. The Lutheran theology of penance looks backward, anchoring the Christian life in the Word spoken in baptism. Lutheranism could, in fact, be defined as "the reduction of the Christian life to baptism." As every Lutheran theologian since Luther himself has said, penance can be nothing more than a "return to baptism," a look back to a past washing, a restatement of a bare word, "you are forgiven." A Catholic must notice that no Lutheran order for confession includes either a purpose of amendment or satisfaction. The confessor is not to inquire into the circumstances of the sins confessed, nor in any way seek to understand what is unique about the journey of the person here before him. A general confession is considered sufficient—and the norm. There is no sense of healing of broken relationships, or of any other harm that our sins have done to ourselves or to another person. The penitent never hears the dominical injunction, "Go and sin no more." The Lutheran lives a life which hangs between the threat of the Law and the promise of the Gospel. Lutheran children study the Small Catechism and adults may familiarize themselves with Luther’s pamphlet On the Freedom of a Christian and his "two kingdoms ethic"— but Lutheranism’s Christian wisdom never seems to get beyond this children’s catechesis and the Law/Gospel dialectic.

The Catholic, however, is aware that through baptism he is now a member of the pilgrim people of God, a people on a journey forward to the full manifestation of the kingdom of God. He can turn to countless sources of wisdom and experience for guidance on the journey—and he knows that the prayers of a great throng, seen and unseen, support him and carry him along. Penance is not merely a reminder of a word echoing from his past, but is a strengthening and help along the journey. Before the priest he reveals his deepest hurts and frustrations, and from him receives healing and hope—a hope which is within reach, symbolized by a little act of penance that places a renewed life within his grasp. For the Lutheran, ever walking into the darkness of the unknown future, penance is a light shining behind should he grow afraid and need reassurance. For the Catholic, penance is one of many places where he can glimpse the presence of God with his people on their pilgrimage.

Yet the Lutheran approach does provide some hints of insights that can help to elucidate a Catholic understanding of Reconciliation—and to bridge what appear to be two irreconcilable approaches. Luther, as we have seen, centered his attention on the Word of God. It is this Word that we are to trust, not our own feelings, which are subjective and unreliable. In the sacrament of Reconciliation, we need to believe the word of absolution as being a word spoken to us by God himself, who cannot lie. Faith clings to this objective word. That’s how I preached as a Lutheran. But Luther equivocates. He remains caught in the Scholastic debates; Biel had argued that the word of the priest merely confirms something that has already happened—Luther couldn’t be sure that it really had. And so Luther reverted to the one word that was undeniable, and that was the word spoken in Baptism. Absolution became merely a restatement of the baptismal word.

But let us stay a moment with the contention that in the sacrament it is the Word spoken to us which is primary. What is the nature of this Word? Here I turn to another statement by Luther, this time from his lectures on Genesis in 1535. The Word is, for Luther, "the means and the instrument God used in doing His work" of creation. This Word is "in the beginning and before every creature…, and it is such a powerful Word that it makes all things out of nothing."[64] And the words spoken by this Word are radically different from the sorts of articulations formed by our mouths. "We, too, speak, but only according to the rules of language; that is, we assign names to objects which have already been created. But the divine rule of language is different, namely: when He says: ‘Sun, shine,’ the sun is there at once and shines. Thus the words of God are realities, not bare words."[65] So when Luther and the Lutheran tradition claim that the word of absolution, though the Word of God, is merely a restatement of a baptismal word, they are being inconsistent with the basic Lutheran insight into the nature of the divine Word. Consistency would have demanded that they see absolution as the same powerful creative Word spoken in creation, a Word which does not merely tell us again what we heard at the beginning of our journey, but which even now brings light into darkness and order out of chaos. It is a Word which speaks grace, and opens up new realms of possibilities from which our sin had blocked us. It is a Word which brings healing and newness of life. And in light of this dynamic understanding of the Word, the post-Reformation debates about whether justification is "forensic" or "effective" disappear as the morning mist, for such a Word, truly a legal decree, is at the same time transformative. It is, as Luther said in commenting on Genesis, "a reality" and not "a bare word."

Afterword: The Joint Declaration on Justification

Though the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue has not addressed this sacrament in depth, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) does lead to a point of convergence similar to what I have just sketched.

22. We confess together that God forgives sin by grace and at the same time frees human beings from sin's enslaving power and imparts the gift of new life in Christ. When persons come by faith to share in Christ, God no longer imputes to them their sin and through the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love. These two aspects of God's gracious action are not to be separated, for persons are by faith united with Christ, who in his person is our righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30): both the forgiveness of sin and the saving presence of God himself.[66]

In the context of the question of the Assurance of Salvation, the Appendix to the JDDJ cites the 1990 study of Karl Lehman and Wolfhart Pannenburg, The Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide?

Luther and his followers go a step farther: They urge that the uncertainty should not merely be endured. We should avert our eyes from it and take seriously, practically, and personally the objective efficacy of the absolution pronounced in the sacrament of penance, which comes 'from outside.' . . . Since Jesus said, 'Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven' (Matt. 16: l 9), the believer . . . would declare Christ to be a liar . . . , if he did not rely with a rock-like assurance on the forgiveness of God uttered in the absolution . . . that this reliance can itself be subjectively uncertain--that the assurance of forgiveness is not a security of forgiveness (securitas), but, this must not be turned into yet another problem, so to speak: the believer should turn his eyes away from it, and should look only to Christ's Word of forgiveness [LV:E 54f.].[67]

The Appendix then cites the evaluation of this point by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in an unpublished document from 1992:

Today Catholics can appreciate the Reformer's efforts to ground faith in the objective reality of Christ's promise, 'whatsoever you loose on earth . . .' and to focus believers on the specific word of absolution from sins. . . . Luther's original concern to teach people to look away from their experience, and to rely on Christ alone and his word of forgiveness [is not to be condemned] [PCPCU 24].[68]

Notes