Покаяние

§ 155. The concept of the sacrament of repentance. The promise of the establishment and the very establishment of the sacrament The essence of the sacrament of repentance. - The promise of the establishment of this sacrament. - Divine institution of the sacrament. Reborn in the sacrament of baptism, confirmed by the grace of anointing in a new life, nourished in the Eucharist with meat into eternal life, a Christian, although he ceases to be a child of the wrath of God, does not cease to be the son of Adam, the heir of the damaged nature of the latter. The power of innate sinfulness, the malice of the spirits of darkness and the dominion of evil in the world are so strong that they are ready to entice one to the path of sin, to remove him from God. For the healing of those who sin after baptism, but who sincerely repent, the Lord established a special visible ritual in His church. This is the sacrament of repentance (μετανοία, poenitentia), in which, with the oral confession of sins committed after baptism, the repentant, through the priest, receives the grace-filled forgiveness of his sins from God Himself, and at the same time the grace-filled power that strengthens the repentant and forgiven sinner in the Christian life (Katih. O repentance. Right Confession, 114). The Savior expressed the promise of establishing the sacrament of repentance more than once during His earthly life. So, when ap. Peter confessed Him to be the Son of the living God, He said: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and if he be bound on earth, he shall be bound in heaven; and even if you have loosed it on earth, it will be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16:19). Christ gave the promise given to Peter alone to the other apostles, and through them to all the shepherds. He taught: You have no will before your Father in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish (Matthew 18:14). Having further commanded the brother who had sinned to first rebuke and admonish him in private, and if private reproofs in private, and then in front of witnesses, did not prove beneficial, to tell the church about the brother who had sinned, He said to the apostles: Amen, I say to you: if you bind on earth, they will be bound in heaven, and if you loose on earth, they will be loose in heaven ( Matthew 18:15–18). But, indeed, I. Christ granted the power to bind and absolve from sins and established the sacrament after His resurrection. Appearing to the disciples, when they all, except Thomas, were in the same house, He said: peace be with you! just as the Father sent Me, and I am sending you. And these things he said, and breathed, and said unto them: Receive the Holy Spirit; He will forgive their sins, they will be forgiven them, and they will hold it, they will hold it (John 20:21-23). In the church, from the days of the apostles, the power to forgive and forbear sins actually existed and was applied to the lives of church members. The apostles used this power when they received those who came to them with confession of their sins (Acts 19:18); They excommunicated grave sinners from the church (1 Cor. 5:6; 1 Tim. 1:20) and again allowed them to be accepted into fellowship (2 Cor. 2:6). In post-apostolic times, this same power always belonged to the pastors of the church. When the false teachings of the Montanists (II century), Novatians (III century) and Donatists (IV century) arose in the church, which took away the hope of salvation from those who sinned after baptism, as well as from the so-called. fallen during the persecution of Christians, their opinions were condemned everywhere (in Greece, Africa and Rome) and the means of salvation was indicated in the fact that the pastors of the church had the right to release the repentant sinner. The church fathers also left detailed discussions about the power of the priesthood over the conscience of sinners in words about the priesthood (St. I. Chrysostom, Ambrose, Ephraim the Syrian) and decrees and rules regarding the sacrament of repentance, penances, etc. § 156. The visible side of the sacrament. His invisible actions Confession of sins to God. – Resolution of sins through a priest. – The gracious action of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of repentance. I. The visible side of the sacrament of repentance includes: oral confession of sins, brought by the penitent before the clergyman, and verbal absolution from sins, pronounced by the clergyman after making confession. 1) The Orthodox Church recognizes oral confession of sins as an essential and necessary component of the sacrament of repentance. And this is understandable, how quickly a repentant can receive permission or non-resolution from sins not through the direct appearance of God to man with the announcement of the forgiveness of sins, but through a minister of the church. There would be no need to establish visible authority to allow or not to allow a sinner if their inner consciousness alone was sufficient to obtain forgiveness of sins. And a minister of the church has the power, at the command of God, to absolve sins not unconditionally, but under the condition of repentance on the part of the sinner, which must be expressed in a visible way. On the other hand, the sacrament of repentance is not only a spiritual judgment - judgment in the sense of the sinner’s self-condemnation of his sinfulness, but, first and foremost, healing. “Here is a doctor’s clinic, not a court,” said St. I. Zlatoust. But how can a church minister be an instrument of healing without knowing what disease to cure? A sick person, wanting healing from an illness, himself tells the doctor about the actions and conditions of the illness. This means that a sinner, if he sincerely desires healing from mental illness, must sincerely reveal his sins to a spiritual doctor. Finally, oral confession of sins cannot but constitute a need of the soul for the penitents themselves. The position of a person who truly longs for healing in the sacrament of repentance cannot be otherwise imagined as the position of a person in the proper sense repenting and contrite at heart from the awareness of the gravity of his sins and their disastrous consequences (examples of such repentance in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Publican and the Pharisee). But in such a state, a person involuntarily seeks to express himself, to open his soul, his feelings and deeds. But before whom should a repentant Christian open his soul and seek forgiveness and pardon from God, if not God before His servant, Who is authorized by Him to listen to the confession of the human heart and invested with such power that His word, permissive on earth, is confirmed by permission in heaven, and prohibiting on earth produces prohibition in heaven? Confession, in the sense of a Christian’s verbal confession of his sins before a minister of the church, has always been recognized as necessary and therefore existed in the church already under the apostles. The first Christians, when they turned to the apostles for the remission of their (secret) sins, then confessed their sins to them, following the example of those of the penitents who brought repentance before John the Baptist, confessing (έξομολογούμενοι) their sins (Matthew 3:6). So, in the book. Acts ap. it is narrated that in Ephesus, after the sons of Sceva the Jew, who conjured the spirits in the name of Jesus and Paul, were beaten for such recklessness by a demoniac, many from the believers came and confessed (έξομολογούμενοι) and saying ( άναγγέλλοντες) their own works (Acts 19:18). From the connection of the speech one can see that the believers confessed their deeds not to anyone else, but to the apostle. Paul (11th century et seq.), and this confession consisted in an open announcement of these matters; before God there would be no need for such an announcement. And that it was truly open is clear from the fact that the very word έξομολογείν - confitere (and the noun derived from it εξομολογήοις, confessio, as well as the simple όμολογείν) generally means to verbally confess, to admit something (Luke 12:8; John 1:20; Acts 24:14; Rom. 10–10), and έξομολογείν and όμολογείν in conjunction with τάς αμαρτίας or παραπτώματα means not only to internally recognize, but also to openly acknowledge and declare sins (Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:5; 1 John 1:9). Here this meaning of έξομολογούμενοι is further strengthened by the word άναγγέλλοντες - proclaiming. And ναγγέλλειν means to retell something separately. Ap. John says: if we confess (όμολογώμεν) our sins, he is faithful and righteous (i.e. the Lord Jesus), may he forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9; fn. James 5:16). By confession of sins here we mean not only the internal consciousness of them, but also their oral or open confession. On the question of whether confession of sins should be national (public) or private (private), neither Jesus Christ nor the apostles give a direct command. In the ancient church, along with secret repentance (for not serious sins), those who fell into serious sins, causing temptation in the church, confessed them before the whole church, remaining between the repentants for quite a while. But then, out of condescension towards the infirm and in view of the weakening of zeal in faith and the former severity of life, public repentance with special degrees for penitents began to be replaced (from the 5th century) by private repentance - before one spiritual father. 2) To a sinner who has confessed his sins, the minister of the mystery of repentance must, according to the command of the Savior, express in words his decision about him (John 20:23; Matthew 18:16). I. Christ himself, in all cases when he absolved one or another sinner from his sins, verbally expressed forgiveness of sins to him, for example, he said: your sins are forgiven (Matthew 9:2; Luke 7:48). According to the rites of our Orthodox Russian Church, the minister of the church over the confessor, recognized as worthy of absolution from sins, reads a short prayer, in which he asks for forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with the church, and after that he performs the “mystery of holy repentance” with the words; “May our Lord and God I. Christ, by the grace and generosity of His love for mankind, forgive you, child N, of all your sins; and I, an unworthy priest, by His power given to me, forgive and absolve you from all your sins, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen.” When pronouncing the end of these words, the priest “signifies the penitent with the right hand of the cross,” usually above the head of the penitent, covered with the end of the epitrachelion (Trebnik). II. The gracious action of the Holy Spirit, combined with the action of the power that resolves sins, consists in the remission of sins (John 20:23; Luke 18-14), in cleansing us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). Inseparably connected with this action is reconciliation with God (Luke 15:17–24; see Rom.5:1–2; 2 Cor.5:19) and the restoration or increase of the grace that justifies the sinner, given in baptism, but lost or diminished through sin, and the hope of eternal life (Luke 19–8; 23, 42–43). All these actions are interconnected by an inextricable connection. The gracious actions of the sacrament of repentance extend to all human sins, no matter how serious they may be. God's mercy and the price of Christ's merits immeasurably exceed the severity of human sins. Therefore, there is no sin that a truly repentant sinner cannot atone for through repentance. Scripture provides examples of sinners who, through repentance, received forgiveness and pardon. By repentance the publican was justified before God; For repentance, a sinner was pardoned, having washed the Savior’s feet with her tears. Through repentance the doors of heaven were opened to the thief. With repentance and bitter tears. Peter, who denied the Lord three times, was again elevated to the rank of apostle. Ap. Peter called Simon the Magus to repentance (Acts 8:22) and even those Jews who crucified the Messiah (2, 22, 37, 38), and I. Christ prayed for them: Father, forgive them; They do not know what they are doing (Luke 23:24). Ap. Paul allowed the incestuous man who had suffered temporary excommunication and repented (2 Cor. 2:7). About me ap. Paul says that he was formerly a blasphemer, but now has received mercy (1 Tim 1:13). True, I. Christ spoke about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, that this sin will not be forgiven either in this age or in the next (Matthew 12:32), and the apostle. John does not command us to pray for forgiveness of mortal sin (1 John 5:16). But by such sin we mean complete bitterness in evil and unrepentance, the highest degree of malice and enmity against God. The reason for the impossibility of remission of this sin, therefore, lies not in the fact that this sin exceeds the infinite goodness of God, but in the moral state of those who fell into this sin - in the fact that their bitterness in evil has reached the point of impossibility for them to repent, as in fallen spirits. § 157. Penances, their origin and meaning The concept of "epithymia". – The healing value of penances. The Lord, by establishing the sacrament of repentance, invested the apostles with the power not only to resolve, but also to bind sins. Here lies the basis for using the so-called sacrament of repentance. penance (τυ έπιτιμίον - punishment, retribution). In the Orthodox Church, penances mean prohibitions or spiritual punishments for sins and, in general, works of repentance imposed by the confessor on some of the penitents, depending on the importance of the sins and the state of conscience of the penitents, in order to heal their moral illnesses, in short - “medicines appropriate to the illness” (VI Ecumenical Council 102 pr.). The use of penances is found even in the Apostolic Church. An example of this is seen in the overlay of up. Paul's penance for the Corinthian incest. Having learned about the iniquity that has appeared, which is not publicly known as someone who has a fatherless wife (i.e., a stepmother), the apostle commands the Corinthian church to hand over such a one in the name of the Lord to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (1 Cor. 5:1–5). By surrender to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, many understand special, extreme punishment (for example. malignant wounds, leprosy, illness in general - something similar to what happened to Job), in order to weaken the bonds of sin by the deterioration of the flesh, which was possible for the apostle under his extraordinary apostolic power, but, first of all, should be understood as nothing other than excommunication from the society of believers, or the church (2 and 13 vv.), outside of which is the domain of Satan (Acts 26:18). In his letter to Timothy, St. Paul says that he delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan, so that they would be punished (παιδευθώσι) not to blaspheme (1 Tim 1:20). The Church of post-apostolic times has at all times used penances for the benefit of its members. This is evidenced by a number of canons on the penances of individual church fathers (Basily V., Gregory of Nyssa, etc.), Ecumenical and Local Councils and penance rules in special penitential collections (penitential nomocanons or penitentials), compiled both in the East and in the West, to guide confessors in determining penances. Penances were and are used in the Orthodox Church of two kinds: some consist in some special pious exercises or deeds of repentance, for example, in prayer beyond the usual, prostrations to the ground, in intense fasting, in doing good to neighbors, etc., with temporary excommunication from communion (small or incomplete excommunication) or without such excommunication, and others - “in excommunication” of the sinner. communion and even from the church for a certain time (ανάθεμα, excommunicatio major). Penances of the last kind were imposed on those who fell into grave sins, such as apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, murder, sacrilege, incest, perjury and the like. In the church of the first centuries of Christianity, those who fell into grave and obvious sins bore public repentance as penance, going through several successive degrees. But although penances are a special kind of punishment, they are only corrective, paternal (παιδεία) punishments in relation to those who have sinned, exactly the same as the apostle speaks about: the Lord loves him, he punishes (παιδείει - Heb. 12:6), and in another place: we are punished by the Lord ( παιδενόμεθα), so that we are not condemned by the world (1 Cor. 11:32), but in relation to all other members of the church - preventive or protective against the same and similar moral ailments. Therefore, the imposition of penances, as having the goal of correcting the life of the penitent and warning against the temptation of others, and others having fear of sin (1 Tim 5:20), comes from the love and care of the church for the salvation of its children. This is how the saint teaches us to understand the meaning of penances. Paul. He defined the purpose of imposing penance on the Corinthian sinner as follows: so that the spirit of the sinner may be saved (1 Cor. 5:5), so that otherwise the entire body of the church would not become infected (v. 1). Despite the severity and danger of sin, the decree of excommunication had only temporary force. As soon as the punishment suffered, from many, has done what it should have done, namely, aroused in him a consciousness of guilt, repentance and sadness, the apostle gives authority for the Corinthian church to accept the repentant of sin back into its midst (2 Cor. 2: 7-8). The ancient universal church also adopted the same meaning for penances, as can be seen from the conciliar and patristic rules on penances. Penances in them are directly called spiritual “healings appropriate to the disease.” When imposing them, the rules determine to take care of adapting them to the nature of the disease in order to quickly and truly heal the sinner, which is why if the beneficial effect of penances was noticed, then they were reduced, the time of penances was shortened, or even abolished altogether. This view of the church on penance is especially revealed in 102 rights. VIth Omni. Cathedral. § 158. Features of the Russian Catholic Church in the teaching about the sacrament of repentance. The Doctrine of Satisfaction and Indulgences The Roman Church, in its teaching about the sacrament of repentance (poenitentia), has committed such errors and abuses that have completely distorted the spirit and character of this sacrament. It teaches that for the completeness and perfection of the sacrament, three essential conditions are necessarily required of the penitent: contrition for sins, confession and satisfaction (Conc. trid. sess. XIV, pp. 4, 5 et 8). But the requirement of contrition (contritio) for sins in fact in the Roman Church is reduced to simple half-repentance or simple regret (attritio) for sins, which is supposedly enough to perform repentance. Perfect contrition in itself would destroy sins and thus make the sacrament unnecessary. This was done by Jesuit teachers of morality, through the application of the so-called theory they invented to the sacrament of repentance. plausible opinions (probabilism). Further, confession itself in the Roman Church was transformed from a “medical clinic” into a “trial court,” into an external process of investigation and judgment of a sinner. The confessor in the Roman Church is not so much a shepherd and a doctor as a judge of the conscience of believers, who, by seemingly divine authority, investigates in detail the guilt of the penitent, finding out what sins he committed, for what reasons, under what circumstances, in order to bring this or that act under one or another article of the code of sins invented by the casuists. Confession from here sometimes turns into an inquisitorial interrogation, one in which the principles of morality and decency are completely eliminated 66. To all this, the Roman Church added dogmatic errors in the teaching about the sacrament of repentance. This includes the doctrine of the so-called. satisfaction to God on the part of man and indulgences. The essence of the doctrine of satisfaction (saticfactio) with God on the part of man is as follows. The truth of God requires a person to be satisfied for his sins and to suffer punishment for them. These punishments are of two kinds: firstly, eternal punishments in hell, and, secondly, temporary punishments in earthly life and beyond the grave (in purgatory). I. Christ, with His redemptive merits and sacrifice, brought infinitely great satisfaction to the justice of God for the entire human race. However, the power of His redemptive merits primarily and exclusively extends only to eternal torment, but does not free us from the need to suffer a certain punishment for our sins and thus bring satisfaction to divine justice. In baptism, a person is granted, according to the merits of the Redeemer, the remission of all sins and all punishments, both temporary and eternal. But for all sins committed after baptism, the person himself must be punished. Therefore, in the sacrament of repentance, for the sake of the redemptive merits of Christ, the sinner is forgiven only sinful guilt and eternal punishment for sins, but temporary punishments, which every person must suffer for his arbitrary sins, are not released in order to receive complete pardon from God. The means of such satisfaction of God's justice are disasters that pursue a person on all paths of life and serve as a due reward, execution or revenge on a person for sin (ponae indicatiae), good deeds, in particular deeds of piety (fasting, deeds of mercy, prayers, etc.), taken upon by Christians, in the form of punishment for sins, voluntarily, in addition to the advice of confessors, especially church penance. Penances are not “spiritual cures appropriate to an illness,” but in the proper sense of punishment, through which the church takes revenge on the sinner, punishes him for insulting divine justice. Whoever, during earthly life, did not manage to pay his debt to God’s justice by suffering temporary punishments, brings satisfaction to the truth of God beyond the grave. For this purpose, there is a so-called afterlife. purgatory (Conc. trid. Sess. XIV, pp. 8–9: Cat. rom. p. II, c. V. 25–54. 59). The doctrine of satisfaction, both in its essence and in its particular statements, cannot be recognized as true. The main position of this teaching, i.e., that a person must bring satisfaction to the justice of God, contradicts the belief of the entire Christian world that I. Christ brought complete and complete satisfaction to the justice of God once and for all for all sins and for the entire human race. If the merits of Christ are infinite and immeasurable, then it follows that there can be no talk of any satisfaction to God on the part of man himself (and not just the original or replenishing satisfaction of Christ, which in theory the Roman Church does not allow). If His merits free us from sinful guilt and eternal punishments, then why do not the same merits extend to temporal punishments? To believe that the Son of God made a sufficient and even abundant sacrifice for all the sins of the world and at the same time affirm that people themselves must endure temporary punishments for their sins in order to satisfy eternal truth, does not it mean to admit that the truth of God punishes for the same sins twice, requires double satisfaction? The idea that temporary disasters and sorrows that befall a person have a retributive meaning is untenable in itself. God is loving, and therefore no actions such as manifestations of human vindictiveness or the desire to cause harm to a person cannot be attributed to Him. By sending temporary misfortunes to a person, God does not take revenge on him for insulting divine truth, but leads him to salvation and reveals His goodness towards him. The Lord loves him and punishes him. Church penances also have no retributive meaning. The Church has always looked at them as an instrument of correction and spiritual healing. None of the councils, none of the ecumenical teachers expressed the idea that by performing penances any satisfaction or ransom is brought to God. Scripture also presents numerous examples that the Lord gives unconditional permission for those who repent, without demanding satisfaction in the form of temporary punishments, for example, when he had mercy and forgave the repentant Ninevites, the prodigal son, the sinner’s wife, the publican, the apostle. Petra and others In close connection with the doctrine of satisfaction is the doctrine of indulgences, by which the doctrine of satisfaction, harsh in theory, is softened in practice. In the church, Catholicism teaches, there is supposedly an inexhaustible treasury of supererogation deeds (thesaurus supererogationis operum) of Jesus Christ, the Mother of God and all the saints, which can serve for the saving use of all the faithful. From this treasury, the pope has the power to take merit in the desired amount, transfer it to sinful people and, thus, free them from the obligation to bring personal satisfaction for their sins. In this way, the living can be released from bearing penances for known sins, and the dead can have their time shortened and their torment in purgatory eased, or even granted complete liberation from them. This liberation from temporary punishments through the assimilation of other people's supererogatory deeds is accomplished through indulgences, outside the sacrament of repentance, but not independently of it. Anyone asking the church for remission of temporary punishments for any sins must first be cleansed of these sins through the sacrament of repentance. Otherwise the indulgence cannot be given to him. Indulgence, therefore, is also a kind of satisfaction, only the one who receives it satisfies the justice of God not by himself, but through others. The remission of punishments through indulgences acquires significance not only before the court of the church, but also before God. The historical origin of indulgences or indulgences (indulgentia means indulgence, mercy) is in general terms as follows. Church practice in the West very early (5th century) began to allow the replacement of heavy canonical penances with the singing of psalms, genuflections, ordered masses, etc., as well as the payment of penances through donations to the church and its institutions. Little by little, it became a custom, instead of performing penances, to sacrifice money or anything else, depending on convenience and circumstances, so that from the 11th century. penance statutes lost all authority and meaning. In the 11th century The Crusades began. The Roman popes, in order to attract more people to participate in them, for the exploits of the crusaders began to announce complete indulgences to everyone, no matter how sinful he was, if only he took up arms and went to free St. land, as well as giving indulgences and monetary donations to the crusading militias. At the same time, they began to generously distribute them for other reasons, such as: the consecration of churches, the establishment of almshouses, campaigns in general against the enemies of the papacy, etc. There were many who wished to take advantage of indulgences in order to free themselves from penances through ransom. Indulgences became a rich source of monetary income for the papacy. To increase income from indulgences, jubilee years (now repeated every 25 years) were established with the announcement of a complete indulgence to all those who would visit Rome in the jubilee year, and “penitential taxes”, in which, for a precisely defined amount, permission was offered for sins not only already committed, but also future ones - violence, adultery, murder. You could even buy your way out of purgatory. Popes often issued special letters of permission, in which they designated general donations for the benefit of churches or monasteries, for their construction, etc., for which indulgences were also given. These and similar abuses of the sacrament of repentance reached such proportions that they caused protests against indulgences not only of individuals, but also of entire councils (for example, the IV Lateral Council in 1215, the councils of the 15th century: Constance and Basel, considered ecumenical in the West). The reformation itself began with the protest against indulgences. But the Council of Trent, despite these protests, approved the distribution of indulgences for all times and anathematized its resolution on them (Sess. XXV. Decr. de indulg.). The distribution and sale of indulgences has hitherto been carried out by the papacy on a large scale, and the newest indulgences (indulgences) are corrupting the Roman Catholic world not only no less, but even more and even more deeply than the medieval ones. Most indulgences, even those currently in force, have several categories. According to the extent of their action, they are divided into complete (plenaria) and incomplete or partial (partialis). There are also local, subject and personal indulgences, as well as temporary and permanent. The history of the origin of indulgences and the morally corrupting influence that they had and have on the Roman Catholic population already testify to the falsity of the very doctrine of indulgences, which was condemned by the Roman Church itself at some of its councils. Its falsity is also revealed by the fact that it rests entirely on a false foundation - on the thought of the supererogatory merits of the saints and the treasury of supererogatory deeds, and is associated with the false doctrine of purgatory. Defenders of the doctrine of indulgences, to justify it, point out that during times of persecution the church freed from penance and accepted into its fellowship those who had fallen from the faith through the intercession of martyrs and confessors who gave letters of peace (libelli pacis). This really happened, but it was not the same thing as indulgence and intercession of martyrs and confessors. An indulgence assumes that the one to whom it is given does not have enough personal funds to repay the debt, and therefore its deficit is covered by the abundant satisfaction of others. In relation to the indicated phenomenon of ancient church life, St. Cyprian of Carthage, in his treatise “On the Fallen,” completely eliminates the relevance of such assumptions when he addresses the fallen themselves with exhortations to bring sincere repentance for their sin and not to place exaggerated hopes on martyrs and confessors, and before these latter he insists that, when interceding for the fallen, they pay attention to their correction. However, the martyrs and confessors did not always follow this advice of the saint. Cyprian and sometimes gave letters of peace without due diligence. One might think that in connection with these abuses the opinion arose that if martyrs and confessors intercede for the fallen, then the sins of the latter are covered by the merits of the former. But if there was such an opinion, then it existed as a private delusion that was in conflict with the beliefs of the church. Tertullian strongly rebels against this opinion. “For a martyr,” he says, “it is enough if he makes amends for his own sins through his merits. Who, besides the Son of God, can deliver another by his death? It is a sign of pride and ingratitude to squander on others what one has acquired at great cost for oneself. If you yourself are a sinner, then how can the oil of your lamp be useful to me? (De pudic). § 159. Protestant denial of the sacrament of repentance Inner contrition for sins. – Denial of oral confession of sins and their forgiveness through a church minister. – Peculiarities of the teaching about the sacrament of repentance among the Anglicans and the Old Catholics. Protestantism does not recognize repentance as a New Testament sacrament in the proper sense. R.-Catholic abuses of secret confession and permissive power led Protestantism to deny the essential meaning of two important aspects of this sacrament - oral confession and absolution from sins, and when denying them, obviously, repentance could not preserve the meaning of the sacrament aimed at the remission of sins, but could remain only the teaching of repentance as a Christian virtue. In this sense, Protestantism proposes the doctrine of repentance. It teaches that a baptized person, who through sins has lost the justification granted by faith, can again be justified before God through internal contrition for sins, with the belief that sins are forgiven for the sake of the merits of Jesus Christ, and the correction of life without any external means, which is why oral confession and the mediation of a priest are not necessary and not obligatory for the reconciliation of a sinner with God. (Conf. aug. I, 12: Apol. ad art XII; Art. Smalc III, 3). True, Protestantism retained both in its communities, but only as simple rituals, as useful church institutions, especially for children and persons with a weak and suspicious conscience. Confession exists in Protestant communities, usually preceding communion (among Lutherans), in two forms: in the form of a general, nationwide confession, and in the form of a private, single confession before a pastor and absolution from sins. The pastor’s permission during the rite of repentance, according to the meaning of Protestant teaching, does not in itself contain a gracious meaning, it is not a manifestation of the power to knit and decide given by God, but is only a proclamation or reminder of the forgiveness that a Christian has acquired through faith in Jesus Christ, a consolation for a weak conscience, but for reconciliation with God itself it is not necessary. It is proclaimed to those who repent, upon confession of sins - private or general - the forgiveness of sins for the sake of Jesus Christ completely, without requiring the confessors to do any deeds. Church penances, within the meaning of Protestant teaching, seem to diminish the significance of Christ’s merits. All of them are human inventions and therefore should not be used (Apol. VI 16–74). The Protestant teaching on repentance represents, in essence, the same formal legal view of repentance as in Roman Catholicism, only in a modified form. What there relates to the activities of the person himself (human actions of a formally legal nature) and external religious institutions, is here adopted by I. Christ. If there a person still considers it necessary to take a personal and active part in reconciliation with God, even through the performance of external, formal actions, then here he already lays aside this work and entrusts it to his intercessor before God - I. Christ. Relying on Christ and reassuring themselves with faith in His merits before God, sinners can act in the same way as those Pharisees and Sadducees, whom John the Baptist denounced, and who, without bringing true repentance, said to themselves: the father of the imams of Abraham (Matthew 3:9). The Protestant teaching on the sacrament of repentance, thus, eliminates the need for penitential feat, and this indicates its obvious one-sidedness. Justifying the denial of the obligation of oral confession of sins to a church minister for the forgiveness of sins, Protestants point out that through the prayer of faith, with only internal repentance, one can ask for forgiveness of sins (Matthew 7:7-8; John 16:23; James 5:15), that the Gospel also indicates examples of when some through prayer received forgiveness of sins, without confession, for example, a publican, a prudent thief, a sinner who washed the Savior’s feet with tears, relaxed, that the one who forgives a sinner is God, and He knows human sins even without confessing sins to a confessor, that, however, if someone feels the need for such a confession, he can satisfy it both before a confessor and before another Christian, for example, a father, a friend, a wise old man, etc., that confession is certainly too difficult, shameful, before a minister of the church, unnatural, and I. Christ taught that His burden is light, etc. For such reasoning, it is enough to note the following. Gospel examples of God's forgiveness of sins through the prayer of faith, without confession of sins, were before the establishment of this sacrament, during the time of the Lord's visible presence with people; forgiveness of sins was granted directly by God Himself and Christ the Knower of the Heart, who had no need for the repentant to confess their sins in order to grant him both forgiveness and healing. His establishment of a special sacrament for remission after His visible removal to heaven for believers of their sins and their healing shows that prayer and the sacrament of repentance are in no way mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they are in the closest connection with each other and mutually complement each other. It is natural for a sinner to ask for heavenly mercy and forgiveness in tears of contrition and repentance. Revealing one's weaknesses and failures before God in prayerful confession naturally eases the state of one's soul, one's conscience finds some peace, but that's all - no greater significance can be given to such a confession. The repentant, in order not to fall into self-delusion, also needs external, higher evidence that his sins have been forgiven. He cannot calm down by prayerfully confessing his sins to God. Obviously, a confession is needed - an extraordinary confession, having supernatural grounds and the same supernatural confirmation of the forgiveness of sins, which is given only in the Christian sacrament of repentance. It is natural for a person to open his soul, his feelings and deeds, his illnesses and failures to his neighbor, but this cannot replace the sacrament of repentance. Neighbors, not having the power to bind and decide, can no more forgive the sins of another, just as a person cannot forgive his own sins. They also say that the natural feeling of shame rebels against the oral confession of sins. True, pride really raises its voice against confession. But the very confession of one’s sinfulness, no matter how difficult it may be, is healing and saving for a person, and the fuller, deeper, more decisive, and sincere it is, the fuller its grace-filled fruits. The teaching of the Anglican Church on repentance is also close to general Protestant views. True, in “Members of the Faith” it is called a “sacrament,” but not an “evangelical” sacrament (XXV ch.). Anglicanism does not have a special rite of the sacrament of repentance with secret confession accompanied by the resolution of sins. In practice, in Anglicanism there is both general confession of sins in the established form and private confession, but it is not obligatory. In both cases, only the priest is given the right to pronounce absolution from sins, during general confession - in the general Protestant spirit. Recently, the old Catholic views on repentance have begun to approach the general Protestant ones. So that the Catholic confessor does not forget any of the questions that he is obliged to ask during confession, the Jesuit manuals (Densa, Liguori) invite him to remember these questions in a brief form: quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando? You might be interested in: