If Jesus Paid it All, Why Do Penance?

If Jesus “paid it all” on the Cross, why would Christians need to do penance—especially during Lent? In this episode, we unpack the common objection, walk through St. Thomas Aquinas’s explanation of participation in Christ’s Passion, and look at Colossians 1:24 to show why penance doesn’t undermine the sufficiency of the Cross—but actually flows from it.

 

TRANSCRIPT:

For many Christians, the season of Lent is a penitential season. In other words, it’s a time set aside for us to focus more intensely on doing penance—actions performed for the sake of making satisfaction for past sins, particularly discharging what theologians call the debt of temporal punishment.

But for a lot of other Christians, that whole idea is problematic.

In fact, many think penance—at least this aspect of penance—is actually an affront to the sufficiency of Jesus’ death on the cross. The reasoning usually goes something like this: “If Jesus paid for all our sins on the cross, then why would we need to make satisfaction for our sins? Wasn’t Jesus’ death enough?”

At first glance, that sounds pretty compelling. After all, if Jesus truly paid it all, doesn’t penance make it sound like he didn’t?

So does the Catholic idea of penance actually undermine the Cross?

Stick around and you’ll find out!

>>>>

Hey friends, Welcome back to the channel! I’m so glad you’re here. If you haven’t done so already, make sure to subscribe and hit that bell notification so you don’t miss any new videos. Also, I want to invite you to consider helping keep this podcast going by supporting us on Patreon at doctorkarlo.com—with “doctor” spelled out. And if you’re already a patron, thank you so much…I really am deeply grateful for your support.

>>>>

Alright! As I mentioned earlier, some Christians believe that penance is an afront to Jesus’ death on the Cross. And very often, they’ll appeal to verses like 1 John 2:2, where St. John says, “[Jesus] is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” The idea is that since Jesus paid for all our sins on the Cross—meaning he wiped away all the debt of punishment for sin—there’s no need for us to make satisfaction for our sins. If the debt has already been paid in full, then we shouldn’t be made to pay anything extra. And if that’s the case, then the doctrine of penance must imply that Jesus’ death wasn’t enough.

That’s the objection in a nutshell.

Now, someone might reply that acts of penance are nothing more than sacrifices made to help us grow in interior holiness—what theologians call sanctification. And since no Christian denies sanctification, so the argument goes, then no Christian should have a problem with penance.

Although it’s true that acts of penance help us grow in holiness, that’s not the full picture. Penance also is directed to discharging the temporal punishment due for past forgiven sins. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches as much in paragraphs 1459 and 1472.

So the initial objection still stands.

But here’s the thing: that argument depends on two assumptions, and both of them need to be untangled.

One assumption is that the doctrine of penance necessarily entails that Jesus’ death wasn’t powerful enough to remit all debt of punishment for sin.

Another is that God willed a particular order of providence—one where God applies the merits of Christ’s death at a believer’s initial conversion in such a way that no debt of punishment for sin can ever be incurred afterward.

In discussions on this topic, the first normally follows from the second. Such that if we can show the Bible proves the second assumption is false, then the first is proven false as well.

But I’d like to treat the first assumption as a stand-alone proposition, show why it’s false, and then move to the second.

So let’s get with it.

For our response to the idea that penance necessarily implies that Jesus’ death isn’t powerful enough to remit all debt of punishment, I’d like to bring in St. Thomas Aquinas for some help. He addresses this issue in a couple of places—most notably in the third part of his Summa Theologiae, question 49, article 3, reply to objection 2, and question 86 of the same part, article 4. I encourage you to read those texts for yourselves. But here, I’ll give you a synthesis of what he says.

Aquinas begins by affirming what every orthodox Christian should affirm:

“Christ’s passion is of itself sufficient to remove all debt of punishment for sin, not only eternal, but also temporal” (ST III:86:4).

That’s crucial. All Christians believe Christ’s sacrifice is fully sufficient.

But Aquinas immediately adds an important principle:

“[M]an is released from the debt of punishment according to the measure of his share [or participation] in the power of Christ’s Passion” (ST III:86:4).

So the key idea here is participation.

Elsewhere, in that question 49 mentioned earlier, Aquinas uses the language of being “likened [or configured] unto [Christ] in his death.”

If someone fully participates in or is configured to Christ’s passion, then all debt of punishment for sin is remitted. If the participation or configuration is partial, then the remission is partial.

That naturally raises the question: Do Catholics believe anyone fully participates in or is configured to Christ’s passion?

The answer is yes—and that happens in baptism.

Aquinas appeals to Romans 6:4 for support. St. Paul writes, “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death.” Through baptism, we die with Christ, are buried with him, and rise with him to a newness of life. Because of that, Paul says in verse 7 of the same chapter we are “freed from sin”—or a more literally in the Greek, justified from sin.

And, as Aquinas teaches in his Summa Contra Gentiles Bk. 3, chapter 72, this is done not by any act on our part but entirely by Christ. When we’re spiritually dead, there’s nothing we can do to make ourselves have spiritual life, since nothing can bring itself into being. And when Christ unites us to himself by his power alone, the union is perfect and whole.

Now, recall Aquinas’s principle: “man is released from the debt of punishment according to the measure of his share in the power of Christ’s Passion.” Since baptism fully configures us to Christ’s death, it follows that all debt of punishment for sin—eternal and temporal—is remitted in baptism.

This is why the Church teaches that the newly baptized don’t have to suffer any punishment for sins committed prior to baptism. All the debt is remitted through that full participation in Christ’s death experienced in baptism. The Catechism states in paragraph 1263:

By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin.

Now you might be thinking: Okay, fine—but penance isn’t ordered to dealing with the debt of punishment for sins committed before baptism. Instead, it’s ordered to dealing with the debt of punishment for post baptismal sins, at least the temporal debt since only Christ can remit the eternal debt. So maybe Christ’s death is sufficient for taking care of all the debt of punishment for sins committed prior to baptism, but on the view that we must do penance it still seems that Christ’s death isn’t sufficient to take care of the debt of punishment for post baptismal sins.

Aquinas provides us an answer in his reply to objection 3 in question 49 mentioned earlier (ST III:49:3 ad 2). He appeals to 1 Peter 3:18 where St. Peter says, “Christ also died for sins once for all.”

The idea is that since Christ died only once, and in baptism we fully participate in and are fully configured to Christ because we die with him, it follows that we only can fully participate and be fully configured to Christ’s death through baptism once. In short, we can only die with Christ once.

And because of that, Aquinas concludes,

“[I]t is necessary that those who sin after Baptism be likened unto Christ suffering by some form of punishment or suffering which they endure in their own person” (ST III:49:3 ad 2).

So the logic is this:

P1: We must be configured to Christ’s passion to receive remission of the debt of punishment for sin.

P2: We cannot be configured to Christ’s passion through a second baptism (because we can only die once with Christ).

P3: One way to be configured to Christ’s passion after baptism is to endure some form of suffering, whether voluntarily imposed or received as a punishment by God (this is the essence of penance).

C: Therefore, one way to receive remission of the debt of punishment for sin after baptism is to endure some form of suffering—whether that’s voluntarily imposed or received as a punishment by God (i.e., penance).

Now, here’s a crucial clarification.

Aquinas is not talking about eternal punishment here, at least when it comes to enduring suffering for sin. No act of penance we perform could ever remit the debt of eternal punishment. That requires infinite power, and only Christ can do that. Initially, he does it through baptism. After baptism, he does it when he supernaturally moves us to repent, ordinarily through the sacrament of reconciliation.

But the debt of temporal punishment is something finite creatures can discharge through acts of penance. Because temporal debt arises from us turning to a finite good in an inordinate way, it’s a finite debt, and thereby proportionate to human action. Aquinas talks about this in the first part of the second part of his Summa Theologiae, question 87, article 4.

And note that these acts of penance themselves are due to God’s grace—specifically, what theologians call “actual grace.” In the Thomistic Tradition, they’re actually supernatural movements of the intellect and will that God causes within us.

Also, another interesting tidbit that Aquinas gives in question 49 mentioned earlier is that even when it comes to getting rid of this debt of temporal punishment our penitential acts are far lighter than what’s really due to us. Nevertheless, he says these lighter penalties suffice to discharge the debt of temporal punishment because they involve a “co-operation with Christ’s satisfaction” (ST III:49:3 ad 2). So even when temporal punishment is remitted, Christ’s satisfaction is still the foundation. It’s not like we’re doing this on our own and by our own power.

When we put all this together, it becomes clear that for Aquinas the need to do penance for post-baptismal sins isn’t because Christ’s satisfaction is insufficient. Instead, it’s because Christ died only once, and we can only fully die with him in baptism once. This is why remission of the punishment due for post-baptismal sins—at least temporal punishment—requires a different mode of configuration to Christ’s passion: sharing in his suffering.

If you want a deeper dive on this, I highly recommend Bryan Cross’s article “St. Thomas Aquinas on Penance” over at calledtocommunion.com.

Okay, so everything I’ve said so far is merely a theological explanation as to how we can reconcile our belief in the sufficiency of Jesus’ death and the need to do penance for post-baptismal sins. This at least takes care of the first assumption in the objection.

But there remains the second assumption. Recall, the objection assumes that God willed an order of providence in which he initially applies the merits of Christ’s death on the cross to a believer in a way that the believer never incurs any debt of punishment for sins committed after conversion.

But did God actually will that order? If he did, then the theological explanation I gave—although successful in reconciling two beliefs—would ultimately be futile because it wouldn’t be true.

Now, I argue that God did not will an order of providence in which believers never incur any debt of punishment for post baptismal/conversion sins. Rather, he willed the opposite.

There are several passages that we could turn to for evidence. And passages that we’re gonna deal with in future episodes.

But I want to focus on one in particular: Colossians 1:24. Paul writes, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church.”

That’s a striking statement. What could possibly be lacking in Christ’s afflictions?

Since we know Christ’s afflictions expiate for sin, it must be something relative to that.

But surely it can’t mean Christ’s death was lacking in expiating the sin of the world and accomplishing the redemption of the human race. Scripture is clear that Jesus accomplished this on the cross. St. John says it in 1 John 2:2, which we quoted earlier. And St. John the Baptist says in John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

We also know there’s no lack in Christ’s afflictions when it comes to the full remission of temporal and eternal debt of punishment for sin at Baptism. We talked about this earlier.

It also can’t be referring to any eternal debt incurred by mortal sin after baptism. Remitting the debt of eternal punishment for sin requires infinite power. Obviously, Paul doesn’t have that since he’s a creature.

So what’s left?

Only one thing: the temporal debt of punishment for post-baptismal/post-conversion sins.

Paul is saying that his sufferings—by God’s grace—are applied to the good of Church by way of discharging the debt of temporal punishment for others in the Church.

And that tells us three important things:

1. Believers can incur a debt of temporal punishment after conversion.
2. Suffering can discharge that debt.
3. This can be done for others—which opens the door for aspects of the doctrines of indulgences and purgatory.

So here’s the takeaway.

The doctrine of penance does not entail that Jesus’ death was insufficient.

And Scripture — especially Colossians 1:24 — shows that God did will an order of providence in which believers participate in Christ’s sufferings for discharging the debt of temporal punishment for post conversion sins.

So if you’re a Christian observing Lent and doing penance, you don’t need to worry that you’re insulting the Cross.

You’re not diminishing Christ’s work.

You’re being configured to it more deeply.

And that’s what being a Christian is all about.

Well, my friends, that’s it for today! If you found this video helpful, make sure to like, subscribe, comment below, and share it with someone who might need to hear this. And for more resources, check out Catholic Answers’s website catholic.com and my personal website at karlobroussard.com.

If you want me to come and speak at your event, visit catholicanswersspeakers.com.

Lastly, I’d love for you to consider supporting me over on Patreon. I can’t continue doing this podcast without your financial support. You can find me over at doctorkarlo.com with “doctor” spelled out.

Thanks for hanging out, and I’ll see you next time!