Repentence vs. Penance

[Ethan_Fetch]

Ludwig Ott and John Hardon are heavyweights...

And the really great thing is that they're more traditional than BXVI so there's no chance for the Catholics on this trhead to dismiss them as "progressives" or ecumaniacs.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

In Roman Catholicism the model is commonly called "synergism".

This is the idea that the Christian must cooperate with Grace.

It's worth pointing out that Roman Catholics understand Grace to be a substance poured into believers at justification and that it can be lost and then regained by sacramental confession and acts of penance.

The Protestant view is that Grace is, fundamentally, an attitude of God toward His people; it is His favor toward the church.

We sometimes use the word as a kind of shorthand for the benefits of the relationship that favor implies. Thus, we describe justification as 'a grace', or the authority to preach the Gospel, or, more mundanely, perhaps just the gift of prayer and suchlike.

But Grace itself is best described in the timeworn expression: The unmerited favor of God toward sinners.

This cannot be earned and it cannot be lost once given. God does not withdraw His favor because His favor rests upon the work of Christ which is of eternal benefit and infinite value.

"Doing penance" is like making restitution: it's A Good Thing To Do, but it won't justify you; that is, it won't make you right with God. Jesus has already done that.

The reason for expressing sorrow for sin is not to twist God's arm and return to His favor, but rather because such expressions are the natural response of a sinning heart freely forgiven in the grace and mercy of God.

Where the Bible encourages us to do this, it is merely impressing upon us the truth that the absence of such fruit is proof that we are, in fact, unrepentant and devoid of the Holy Spirit.

More positively it is a simple reminder that we have been called not only to call Jesus Savior but also to obey Him as Lord.

""Doing penance" is like making restitution...



Ludwig Ott says it is not "like making restitution" it IS making restitution.

From "Dogmas of the Church", Ott defines it thusly;


The form of the Sacrament of Penance consists in the words of Absolution.
Absolution, in association with the acts of the penitent, effects the forgiveness of sins.

Therefore, Ott, clearly conveys the Roman Catholic meaning, which is as we correctly stated here, that penance, "effects the forgiveness of sins."

Which is contrary to what some Roman Catholics have tried to say on this thread.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Ludwig Ott and John Hardon are heavyweights...

And the really great thing is that they're more traditional than BXVI so there's no chance for the Catholics on this trhead to dismiss them as "progressives" or ecumaniacs.

Exactly!

Repudiate Ott and Hardon if they wish, but in the process they are repudiating the clear teaching of Rome.

Therefore, one has to ask which "authority" we are to understand on this matter, Ott and Hardon, well known Roman Catholic theologians, albeit of the Trad variety, or a few posters here on this thread?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

That is also the Catholic understanding of it. We do not do certain things for forgiveness to take effect. The idea of penance is two fold. One to throw away the old and put on the new to redirect ourselves away from sin to God through prayer. Forgiveness has already taken place. The natural progression is to pray.

Not according to Ludwig Ott;

"The form of the Sacrament of Penance consists in the words of Absolution.
Absolution, in association with the acts of the penitent, effects the forgiveness of sins." (Dogmas of the Church)

Which is correctly representing Roman Catholic teaching between these two, yourself or Ludwig Ott?

 

[Lynn73]

The post has only shown one Catholic Bible that uses the word Penance which has been shown to be acceptable translation.

This is from another Catholic Bible.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew3.htm
NAB. (and) saying, "Repent, 3 for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"

All that has been shown is one Catholic Bible that has the word "penance" instead of "repent." What about all of the many Catholic Bibles that say "penance"? Where are the quotes from those Bibles?

Peace

I had no knowledge of the other Catholics Bibles. I used crosswalk.com and saw the DR Bible which I knew was Catholic. I don't know about the others.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

I had no knowledge of the other Catholics Bibles. I used crosswalk.com and saw the DR Bible which I knew was Catholic. I don't know about the others.

It is a known deficiency of the Douai Rheims translation...good on ye for catching it.

 

[Lynn73]

Unfortunately, penance for the Christian is not acceptable, since that was done by Christ for the Christian, and He did it in completeness.
You can beat yourself silly with a whip, wear hairy shirts, recite repetitive prayers until the cows come home, and you will not affect penance.

That was Christ's privilege, to pay for our sins. It is something He did as the Lamb that was slain from the foundations of the world.

Penance is a waste of time and a slap in the face of the Blessed Redeemer.

This is basically what I think on the subject. I don't think repentance and penance are the same thing at all.
As far as our relationship with God goes, we can't do anything to make up for or atone for any of our sins, Christ has already atoned for each and every one and, as you say, to try and do something to pay for your own sin IS a slap in the face to Christ and a waste of time. All our righteousness is like filthy rags in our sight and we aren't going to earn any "brownie points" with Him by performing assigned penances. We repent (change our mind, behavior, etc. turn from the sin and walk away) ask forgiveness according to 1 John 1:9 and accept His forgivens and go on. By the way, I couldn't find the word penance in the Bible dictionary either but maybe I didn't look in the right one.

 

[Lynn73]

It is a known deficiency of the Douai Rheims translation...good on ye for catching it.

If the other Catholic versions, whichever ones they are, us the term repent or repentance and not penance, I wonder why they don't correct the DR version.

 

[CaDan]

For those interested:

The reasoning behind the Tridentine decrees is available here:

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct14.html

Not a great translation, and it appears to be a hastily scanned and OCRed version.

A bit of a summary: A lot of the reasoning is based on this passage:

[bible]John 20:21-23[/bible]

 

[holeinone]

That is also the Catholic understanding of it. We do not do certain things for forgiveness to take effect. The idea of penance is two fold. One to throw away the old and put on the new to redirect ourselves away from sin to God through prayer. Forgiveness has already taken place. The natural progression is to pray.

Also are you saying that you just forgave your child and did not tell your child not to do that again? Or give your some kind instruction to change their conduct? Are you saying that you just forgave your child and did nothing to change their conduct and you just let your child carry on?


Peace

If one goes to confession and does not do the penance given to him by the confessor is he forgiven?

Even if forgiven does the person still need to do time in purgatory for the sin?

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

If the other Catholic versions, whichever ones they are, us the term repent or repentance and not penance, I wonder why they don't correct the DR version.

Well, while the DR it isn't exactly obsolete, it is known to be a defective translation.

It isn't even translated from the original Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic; it's a translation of Jerome's Latin version.

These reasons are why the English speaking RCC no longer uses it liturgically though it is still in circulation.

It's something like the Kings James version. The KJV is a superior translation, I'm not comparing quality, but just like the KJV is beloved of Protestants everywhere, so also is the DR revered by many old time Catholics.

 

[Lynn73]

On the other hand:



Now, in Matt 3:2, John says: ""Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

The word is used 27 times in the NT while "repentance" is used 20 times.

It NEVER means to make "An act of self-mortification or devotion performed voluntarily to show sorrow for a sin or other wrongdoing."

It always means, "to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins"p
Why is this important?

Well, Lynn told us in the OP but it bears repeating:

The Bible nowehre tells us that we must earn God's mercy or merit His favor. Everywhere it tells us the opposite, that while the wages of sin are death, the free gift of God is eternal life..

The Bible tells us to "bear fruit in keeping with repentance" but this is clearly not meritorious, it is an encouragement to behave in a way that is consistent with our change of heart, that behavior being understood as the product, not the cause of our standing with God and the repentance so much a part of it.

Thank you for explaining it so well. I just don't think some understand that we don't do anything to atone for our sins, such as penance. There is a difference betwween penance and repentance and I disagree with those who think penance has any part in repentance. 1 John 1:9 is what we do when we sin, not worry about how to atone for it or make up for it. We can't. If we could atone for or make up for our own sins, Jesus coming certainly was unnecessary I would say.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Thank you for explaining it so well. I just don't think some understand that we don't do anything to atone for our sins, such as penance. There is a difference betwween penance and repentance and I disagree with those who think penance has any part in repentance. 1 John 1:9 is what we do when we sin, not worry about how to atone for it or make up for it. We can't. If we could atone for or make up for our own sins, Jesus coming certainly was unnecessary I would say.

That's right, sister, "nothing in my hands I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling"

 

[Lynn73]

Well, while the DR it isn't exactly obsolete, it is known to be a defective translation.

It isn't even translated from the original Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic; it's a translation of Jerome's Latin version.

These reasons are why the English speaking RCC no longer uses it liturgically though it is still in circulation.

It's something like the Kings James version. The KJV is a superior translation, I'm not comparing quality, but just like the KJV is beloved of Protestants everywhere, so also is the DR revered by many old time Catholics.

Hmm, I see, but it is inaccurate nevertheless of course.

 

[Lynn73]

That's right, sister, "nothing in my hands I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling"

No double jeopardy. Jesus paying for our sins and then us turning around and trying to pay a debt that's already been paid. Now, I do see us making amends with people that we've wronged but that in no way constitutes trying to earn God's forgiveness. We can do no penance that would make us worthy of forgiveness. We aren't worthy of salvation, period, no matter what we do or deprive ourselves of. As Christians, we ask for and receive His forgiveness by faith bases on what Christ has done.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

This is basically what I think on the subject. I don't think repentance and penance are the same thing at all.

In his work, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott clearly defines penance as atonement for sin;

By sacramental satisfaction is understood works of penance which are imposed on the penitent in atonement for the temporal punishment for sins.

In Dogmas of the Church, Ott also defines penance, which is in accordance with the dogmatic, and believed infallible teaching of the Council of Trent by Roman Catholics, thusly;


The form of the Sacrament of Penance consists in the words of Absolution.
Absolution, in association with the acts of the penitent, effects the forgiveness of sins.

Now, we have been told by a few Roman Catholics on this thread that "penance" as we have defined it from Roman Catholic teaching and Roman Catholic theologians, is a misrepresentation of RC dogma on penance. But how can that be, when Roman Catholic sources are the source?

Could it be that they don't really know what Rome teaches?

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

In his work, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott clearly defines penance as atonement for sin;

By sacramental satisfaction is understood works of penance which are imposed on the penitent in atonement for the temporal punishment for sins.

In Dogmas of the Church, Ott also defines penance, which is in accordance with the dogmatic, and believed infallible teaching of the Council of Trent by Roman Catholics, thusly;


The form of the Sacrament of Penance consists in the words of Absolution.
Absolution, in association with the acts of the penitent, effects the forgiveness of sins.

Now, we have been told by a few Roman Catholics on this thread that "penance" as we have defined it from Roman Catholic teaching and Roman Catholic theologians, is a misrepresentation of RC dogma on penance. But how can that be, when Roman Catholic sources are the source?

Could it be that they don't really know what Rome teaches?

::crickets::

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

That's right, sister, "nothing in my hands I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling"

As Luther so vividly describes the Covering Blood of Christ on the Redeemed sinner, "We are like snow covered hills of cowdung".

 

[Lynn73]

In his work, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott clearly defines penance as atonement for sin;

By sacramental satisfaction is understood works of penance which are imposed on the penitent in atonement for the temporal punishment for sins.

In Dogmas of the Church, Ott also defines penance, which is in accordance with the dogmatic, and believed infallible teaching of the Council of Trent by Roman Catholics, thusly;


The form of the Sacrament of Penance consists in the words of Absolution.
Absolution, in association with the acts of the penitent, effects the forgiveness of sins.

Now, we have been told by a few Roman Catholics on this thread that "penance" as we have defined it from Roman Catholic teaching and Roman Catholic theologians, is a misrepresentation of RC dogma on penance. But how can that be, when Roman Catholic sources are the source?

Could it be that they don't really know what Rome teaches?

That's a good question. If Catholics themselves define penance as an atonement for sin then how can they turn around and say it isn't. Someone needs to make up their mind. I though all Catholics were in total unity and believed exactly the same. I'm confused.

 

[Lynn73]

::crickets::

What does crickets mean? Except for those bugs that make that funny noise, that is. See you later.