Penance vs. Repentance

[Gefra]

St. Matthew 3:2 of the Douay-Rheims reads as follows: “Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The New American translates the same verse “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” St. Luke 3:3 of the DR reads: “And he came into all the country about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins.” The NAB translates the same verse “He went throughout [the] whole region of the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”

It is my understanding that the Greek word translated in the DR as “penance” and in the NAB as “repentance” is Metanoia which is defined as a “change of mind.”

The English definition of penance in the Random House College Dictionary is “a punishment undergone in token of penitence for sin.” The same source defines repentance as “remorse or contrition for a sin, wrongdoing or the like; compunction.”

As a “revert” I am confused by the differing English definitions in the two translations when compared to the Greek. Can you help?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

“Metanoia” might tend one to believe that “repent” would be an accurate translation.

Jesus however did not speak in Greek and we do not know for a fact that the Holy Spirit inspired the original gospel writer to write the verse origanaly in Greek.

We do know that Jesus also said of Tyre and Sidon that if they had seen such works they would long ago have “repented in sackcloth and ashes” which would certainly indicate “Doing penance” along with a change of mind.

"Doing penitential acts was always part of the Jewish culture. Is it far fetched to believe that when Jesus said that we should repent that he wouldn’t have had also penitential acts involved in that repentance? Of course not!

And are we privy to the “orignal language texts” that so many here say should be used that St. Jerome could have had that we do not have now?

Translation requires more than just matching words slavishly from any textual source.

Jesus speaking from Hebrew would convey certain nuances that a later on Greek text would not convey!

So let’s get this straight! I’m not going to worship at the altar of a septuagint text of hundreds of years later as an Exact replication of what Jesus Christ actually said.

It is possible that St. Jerome could have gotten some things wrong but we do know that the Ecumenical Council of Trent said that the Vulgate could be used in “all disputations” and was free from doctrinal error!

It is a doctrinal difference of “Repentance” versus “Do penance”.

Since the Vulgate does not err I believe that St. Jerome’s translation of “Do penance” is the correct one and that the Protestant CHOICE of repent is motivated by their doctrinal error!

If you don’t believe in “Doing Penance” as Jesus said then you’re in the Protestant camp. Catholics do believe in “DOING PENANCE”!

And that is just one of many examples of why Protestant translations that contradict the Vulgate or wrong–just like Martin Luther was WRONG when he came up with the “Repentance” translation malarky!

 

[Gefra]

“Metanoia” might tend one to believe that “repent” would be an accurate translation.

*Metanoia is accurately translated repentence in English. *

Jesus however did not speak in Greek and we do not know for a fact that the Holy Spirit inspired the original gospel writer to write the verse origanaly in Greek.

In what other language would the inspired original have been written?

We do know that Jesus also said of Tyre and Sidon that if they had seen such works they would long ago have “repented in sackcloth and ashes” which would certainly indicate “Doing penance” along with a change of mind.

According to your logic, we can’t know what Our Lord actually said since he did not speak in Greek and, according to you, we don’t know “for a fact” in which language the Holy Spirit originally inspired the author to write.

"Doing penitential acts was always part of the Jewish culture. Is it far fetched to believe that when Jesus said that we should repent that he wouldn’t have had also penitential acts involved in that repentance? Of course not!

• My question is not about the Latin Vulgate’s authenticity or accuracy, but about the usage of two different English words, penance and repentance, in the Douay-Rheims. Do you also believe that the English Translation is under the pronouncement of Trent? *

And are we privy to the “orignal language texts” that so many here say should be used that St. Jerome could have had that we do not have now?

I don’t know what texts St. Jerome used and whether or not the ancient texts found long after his time and that of Trent are the more accurate. Do you? If you do, which are they?

Translation requires more than just matching words slavishly from any textual source.

*“What specifically would be required besides matching words when translating?”
*
Jesus speaking from Hebrew would convey certain nuances that a later on Greek text would not convey!

*What language did Our Blessed Lord speak? It is my understanding that he spoke Aramaic and that he read Scripture translated from Greek into Hebrew. *

So let’s get this straight! I’m not going to worship at the altar of a septuagint text of hundreds of years later as an Exact replication of what Jesus Christ actually said.

Get what straight? What “altar of a septuagint text” are you talking about?"

It is possible that St. Jerome could have gotten some things wrong but we do know that the Ecumenical Council of Trent said that the Vulgate could be used in “all disputations” and was free from doctrinal error!

*Once again, my question is not about the accuracy of St. Jerome’s Latin Vulagate or the Council of Trent. It is about the English translation.
*
It is a doctrinal difference of “Repentance” versus “Do penance”.

No, it is a difference of two English Word’s definitions, repentance and penance, which have differing definitions. In English.

Since the Vulgate does not err I believe that St. Jerome’s translation of “Do penance” is the correct one and that the Protestant CHOICE of repent is motivated by their doctrinal error!

That’s great that you do, but you haven’t answered my question.

If you don’t believe in “Doing Penance” as Jesus said then you’re in the Protestant camp. Catholics do believe in “DOING PENANCE”!

*How you got from my request for clarification, a simple question, to challenging my beliefs…in caps, is astonishing. *

And that is just one of many examples of why Protestant translations that contradict the Vulgate or wrong–just like Martin Luther was WRONG when he came up with the “Repentance” translation malarky!

My question is about the words used in the Douay-Rheims Translation. Not Martin Luther or Protestant translations. I simply asked about two words in two Catholic Translations.

 

[porthos11]

Never mind him, he’s a Vulgate-only poster, despite his denials to the contrary. He doesn’t seem to accept that the inspired texts recognized by the Church is the Greek for the New Testament. He also doesn’t really realize that we’re not talking about the Septuagint, but rather, the New Testament.

Metanoia is indeed translated as “repentance”; specifically, the Greek word means an interior change, and has little relation to “penance” as commonly understood in today’s English. The present translation of “repent” actually conveys the Greek better.

“Penance” is okay, but only if used in the older sense as in “Sacrament of Penance”, and not the punitive sense that loads today’s English word. If clarity of the Greek is desired, “repentance” is the better choice.

 

[Todd_Easton]

I think when St. John the Baptist called people to repent he wanted them be like the tax collector Zacchaeus.

When the tax collector Zacchaeus had his change of heart (repented), he did penance, saying, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold.” (Luke 19:8)

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1430) explains,Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sack-cloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance. It’s not repentance vs penance but repentance and penance together.

 

[Michael_G]

I think when St. John the Baptist called people to repent he wanted them be like the tax collector Zacchaeus.

When the tax collector Zacchaeus had his change of heart (repented), he did penance, saying, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold.” (Luke 19:8)

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1430) explains,Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sack-cloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance. It’s not repentance vs penance but repentance and penance together.

St. Matthew 3:2 of the Douay-Rheims reads as follows: “Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The New American translates the same verse “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” St. Luke 3:3 of the DR reads: “And he came into all the country about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins.” The NAB translates the same verse “He went throughout [the] whole region of the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”

It is my understanding that the Greek word translated in the DR as “penance” and in the NAB as “repentance” is Metanoia which is defined as a “change of mind.”

The English definition of penance in the Random House College Dictionary is “a punishment undergone in token of penitence for sin.” The same source defines repentance as “remorse or contrition for a sin, wrongdoing or the like; compunction.”

As a “revert” I am confused by the differing English definitions in the two translations when compared to the Greek. Can you help?

If one considers the historical roots of what is being said here one ultimately has to acknowledge the Jerome is right, the protestant translation is wrong. There are many a time that I have seen when there are controversies that an unbiased Protestant, or a Protestant who is coming into the Catholic church have some of the greatest insights into explaining the problem. The following is such.

There were several instances in the 16th Century where the traditional Latin vocabulary used by St. Jerome in the Vulgate was challenged based on the grammar and vocabulary in the Greek New Testament. Most of this were minor quibbles of no great import, but some were used by prots to question Catholic teaching and practice.

One of the important challenges were the following:

1. The translation of “metanoeo” as "paenitentiam agite"

The Greek verb “metanoeo" comes from two other Greek words: meta (change) & noos (mind). The most accurate rendering into English of the meaning of this word would be “to repent.” The implication was that at some point in **time someone **would change their mind about a past action and regret having done it. There was no simple Latin equivalent of this Greek term and so the Vulgate used the phrase "paenitentiam agite"which in Latin means "do penance.” The idea of “penance” in Latin carried the connotation of regret and sorrow for past actions but went further in that it also implied the performing of acts of reparation and mortification. By having Jesus say that his followers had to “do penance and believe the Gospel” (Mark 1:15) it **implied that they needed to perform acts of mortification (fasting, self-denial, wearing a hair shirt, self flagellation) or reparation (restoring loss goods, compensating victims) , as conditions for the forgiveness of sins. **

The prots in the 16th Century claimed that the word metanoeo carried no such implication and that all that was needed was a genuine sense of sorrow for sin. Certain radicals – typified today by some Dispensationalists – even stated that sorrow for sin was not needed. They claimed that repentance merely meant that you intellectually changed the way you thought from that moment forwards without any reference to past actions. Those were “covered over” by Christ and hence forgotten by God.

Technically, the prots were right. The words “metaneo” and "paenitentiam agite"are not exact equivalents. But they forgot that the NT uses Greek words in a distinctly Hebrew way and that they must be understood in the context of a Hebrew idiom. The word for “repent” in OT Hebrew was "nacham" which has the following connotations according to Strong’s Concordance:

Nacham - to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted

a) (Niphal)

1. to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
2. to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to comfort oneself, ease oneself

b) (Piel) to comfort, console

c) (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled

d) (Hithpael)

1. to be sorry, have compassion
2. to rue, repent of
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to ease oneself

As you can see, **the OT concept included sorrow, grief , compassion, and acts to comfort others and be comforted oneself. Repentance was not merely a passive act of regret nor merely a change of mind. As such, St. Jerome’s choice of "do penance"had the wider context of the OT meaning in mind and we need to appreciate that.
**
In later rabbinical theology, the term “teshuvah” (turning) would be used for repentance. It would be defined by the Talmud as a turning towards God and a turning away from one’s sins. It also meant a turning towards one’s sins as something to contemplate and regret: the opposite of moral denial. St. Thomas Aquinas was aware of this rabbinical teaching and in his Summa Theologiae he has the turnings towards God and towards/away from sin as two of the four results of the grace of justification. (The other two were the forgiveness of sin and the infusion of the new life of grace.)

The Rabbis were not heavily into acts of mortification. many of these practices were unique to Christians who wished to imitate their Lord in his suffering for mankind on the cross. **Nevertheless, repentance in “sack cloth and ashes” was a Jewish practice advocated in both Testaments(e.g., Daniel 9:3, Matthew 11:21Matt 11:21 they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. , Luke 10:13).

Most all Protestants acknowlege this one that repenance is not enough in the following situtiation: If one steals from someone, or damages another’s property willfully or neglectfully, is it enough to have true sorrow and resolve not to do it again? Or is something more required such as restitution!

In summary, the issue here was whether Greek grammar or the Biblical idiom should guide the translation. The prots opted for the former while St. Jerome and the Catholic Tradition opted for the latter.

 

[porthos11]

In summary, the issue here was whether Greek grammar or the Biblical idiom should guide the translation. The prots opted for the former while St. Jerome and the Catholic Tradition opted for the latter.

Yes, and translating from a purely linguistic point of view is a valid translation methodology. Metanoia, as a word, translates to “repentance” and does not in and of itself require external acts of penance. That comes from an understanding of the context.

Translators, however, are not required to force the culture into a translation. They are, however, required to respect the language.

I’ve always held to the position that linguistic accuracy will always uphold theological accuracy. “Repentance” is the correct translation of metanoia. “Repent or perish” is also theologically correct, despite the protestations of certain posters who brand it as “lies” when it’s nothing of the sort.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If you polled everyone at the Ecumenical Council of Trent do you think that they would think that the gospel writer had in mind the more narrow connotation of repentance as merely a change of mind or heart or the broader meaning which would include penitential acts?

This goes to the very heart of the Protestant lunacy.

We’re to believe that Jesus in every instance that he ever talked about repentance was throwing away everything that the Old Testament had taught about repentance which included penitential acts.

Who believes such nonsense?

And YES it does make a difference when it comes to Jesus’ teaching that He was not speaking in Greek but Aramaic or Hebrew–especially if the Holy Spirit did not ORIGINALY inspire the gospel writer to write the gospel in Greek!

In other words we aren’t required to believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the bible to ORIGNALY be written in Greek–in fact if you want to get absolutely precise–even if the original gospel writer wrote the SECOND draft of the bible in Greek–we are not to worship at the altar of the second text!

Of course all of this is absurd because we don’t have ANY ORIGINAL copies from the original Gospel writers.

What we do have are many variants of what the church was using as scripture in its liturgies!

In other words we have a range of what the early Catholic Church thought to be the truth!

This was before we had Protestant excuses and theological interpretations!

Tell me WHY the Vulgate on a doctrinal matter such as repentance versus doing penance should not be trusted but the CHOICE to ignore the Hebrew idiom in favor of a SELECTIVE rendering based only on a narrow reading of the Greek text should?!

Point blank–if Jesus didn’t speak it in Greek are we to throw away ALL possible renderings or connotations from Hebrew?

Of course not!

I make no apology for maintaining that in DOCTRINAL dispuites that the Vulgate is ALWAYS superior to Protestant selective translation that masquerades as scholarship but is nothing more than HERESY.

Martin Luther was HERETICAL about DONING PENANCE and Protestant translators and other non Vulgate Catholic translators are equally as HERETICAL!

We do know one thing: the Vulgate says “DO PENANCE or Perish”.

In the end it comes down to this: either you’ll do penance like Jesus and the Catholic Church says are you’ll bet your soul that Jesus never said DO PENANCE.

Tell me something: Do you really want to make that bet?

 

[porthos11]

If you polled everyone at the Ecumenical Council of Trent do you think that they would think that the gospel writer had in mind the more narrow connotation of repentance as merely a change of mind or heart or the broader meaning which would include penitential acts?

This goes to the very heart of the Protestant lunacy.

We’re to believe that Jesus in every instance that he ever talked about repentance was throwing away everything that the Old Testament had taught about repentance which included penitential acts.

Who believes such nonsense?

And YES it does make a difference when it comes to Jesus’ teaching that He was not speaking in Greek but Aramaic or Hebrew–especially if the Holy Spirit did not ORIGINALY inspire the gospel writer to write the gospel in Greek!

In other words we aren’t required to believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the bible to ORIGNALY be written in Greek–in fact if you want to get absolutely precise–even if the original gospel writer wrote the SECOND draft of the bible in Greek–we are not to worship at the altar of the second text!

Of course all of this is absurd because we don’t have ANY ORIGINAL copies from the original Gospel writers.

What we do have are many variants of what the church was using as scripture in its liturgies!

In other words we have a range of what the early Catholic Church thought to be the truth!

This was before we had Protestant excuses and theological interpretations!

Tell me WHY the Vulgate on a doctrinal matter such as repentance versus doing penance should not be trusted but the CHOICE to ignore the Hebrew idiom in favor of a SELECTIVE rendering based only on a narrow reading of the Greek text should?!

Point blank–if Jesus didn’t speak it in Greek are we to throw away ALL possible renderings or connotations from Hebrew?

Of course not!

I make no apology for maintaining that in DOCTRINAL dispuites that the Vulgate is ALWAYS superior to Protestant selective translation that masquerades as scholarship but is nothing more than HERESY.

Martin Luther was HERETICAL about DONING PENANCE and Protestant translators and other non Vulgate Catholic translators are equally as HERETICAL!

We do know one thing: the Vulgate says “DO PENANCE or Perish”.

In the end it comes down to this: either you’ll do penance like Jesus and the Catholic Church says are you’ll bet your soul that Jesus never said DO PENANCE.

Tell me something: Do you really want to make that bet?

Yes, I will.

I do penance on the authority of the Church, not on your insistence of a Latinism from the Vulgate.

I have long since stopped caring about anything you have to say, since you are incapable of giving your opinions with any semblance of civility. You keep bashing the Greek but present absolutely no backing for your Hebrew or Aramaic claims beyond speculation. You brand as heretical translations that are clearly accurate and are clearly not theologically wrong, but do not suit your Latin preferences.

“Repent” is not heretical. It’s not as broad, but what’s your proof that the mere text “Repent or perish” is heretical? You can’t because it’s not. It’s sound, orthodox, Catholic belief.

The Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament in Greek, and the Holy Father Pius XII has given it MORE authority than the Latin.

It’s up to you to obey him or not.

 

[BRB]

]It’s not repentance vs penance but repentance and penance together.

Exactly … not intended as an either/or.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I don’t worship the RSV or Protestant selected English translations of whatever Greek variants that validate their theology.

I also reject the notion that the authority of the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching is based on inaccurate biblical texts.

I believe that Jesus Himself when He taught “Do penance or perish” meant exactly that!

 

[porthos11]

I don’t worship the RSV or Protestant selected English translations of whatever Greek variants that validate their theology.

I also reject the notion that the authority of the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching is based on inaccurate biblical texts.

I believe that Jesus Himself when He taught “Do penance or perish” meant exactly that!

No one is countering your opinion, because your opinion of “do penance” is correct.

And “repent” is not wrong either. If you believe “repent or perish” is heretical, prove it! Prove it now!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Repent or perish has as much weight as have faith or perish.

Faith alone isn’t true–why would repent alone also be true?

I’m not arguing that true repentance encompases doing penance. What I’m arguing is that Jesus specifically communicated more than just the encompasing term of repentance–He went further and told us to DO PENANCE.

Protestants may not believe that–a Greek translation of what Jesus said may not convey that–I believe that that is what Jesus said.

St. Jerome believed that.

The Catholic Church in endorsing the Vulgate and using it in its liturgy over the centuries attested to that.

If Jesus truely meant that–it is a doctrinal difference that matters.

Maybe the real question should be to Jesus: Lord when You said “Repent or perish” did You mean have a change of heart and mind Lord or did You mean have a change of mind and heart and DO penitential acts?

How would Jesus answer that question?

Would He give an RSV answer or a Vulgate answer?

 

[porthos11]

I’m not arguing that true repentance encompases doing penance. What I’m arguing is that Jesus specifically communicated more than just the encompasing term of repentance–He went further and told us to DO PENANCE.

Protestants may not believe that–a Greek translation of what Jesus said may not convey that–I believe that that is what Jesus said.

According to the Latin. Not according to the Greek.

St. Jerome believed that.

So?

The Catholic Church in endorsing the Vulgate and using it in its liturgy over the centuries attested to that.

If Jesus truely meant that–it is a doctrinal difference that matters.

No it doesn’t. Metanoia is “repent”. No more no less. Whether or not it includes penitential acts (actually, it does since it is Catholic teaching) is not coveyed by the word itself. One does not read additional things into a translation.

Maybe the real question should be to Jesus: Lord when You said “Repent or perish” did You mean have a change of heart and mind Lord or did You mean have a change of mind and heart and DO penitential acts?

We are not mind readers. He said “repent”. That’s it. How we express our repentance is borne out of our obedience to the Church, not by forcing our opinion into a translation.

Would He give an RSV answer or a Vulgate answer?

He will tell you you were wasting your breath on the forums arguing semantics when you should be actually doing it.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Jesus didn’t say “metanoia”.

What is more accurate–what Jesus actually said in Hebrew or Aramaic or what the Greek word says that He said?

If you’re an original language translation worshiper are you going to tell me that the original words spoken by Christ in Hebrew or Aramaic are besides the point?

Prove that the Holy Spirit inspired the original gospel writers to only use the Greek word–“Metanoia” for what Jesus actually said in Aramaic or Hebrew in the original first draft of the Holy scriptures.

If you can’t do that then tell me why the Greek language exclusively without reference to hebrew or aramaic should be supremely depositive in conveying what the Holy Spirit wished to convey in Holy scripture.

Some criticize the Vulgate and say that it should not hold any precedence when one searches in translating the bible ancient original language texts–although the Catholic Church does not teach that.

Some of those same people though would have no problem with accepting what any particular Greek variant would say–if the Vulgate is not what Jesus originally said–why would a Greek translation of what he originally said in Aramaic or Hebrew BE WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID?

So NO! One should not accept that what Jesus ACTUALLY SAID should be confined to the English translation of the Greek word “Metanoia”.

And considering the context of Hebrew words and Aramaic words when translating from Greek is not “READING additional things into translation” it is the VERY ESSENCE of true translation!

It is to be expected that the Soal Scripturaist crowd would produce “scholars” with the similiar narrow mind that would conceive of translation as not considering the context of Hebrew or Aramiac words.

They are Greek in and of itself and without regard to context Scripturall onyists.

Let’s be thankful that the Catholic Church is not that narrow mindded wihen it comes to Holy Scripture!

 

[porthos11]

Jesus didn’t say “metanoia”.

Then what, sir, did he say?

What is more accurate–what Jesus actually said in Hebrew or Aramaic or what the Greek word says that He said?

What again, Mr. Jet, did he say?

If you’re an original language translation worshiper are you going to tell me that the original words spoken by Christ in Hebrew or Aramaic are besides the point?

Prove that the Holy Spirit inspired the original gospel writers to only use the Greek word–“Metanoia” for what Jesus actually said in Aramaic or Hebrew in the original first draft of the Holy scriptures.

Sure. There are no extant Aramaic manuscripts, and the Church in her wisdom accepted the Greek. Period.

If you can’t do that then tell me why the Greek language exclusively without reference to hebrew or aramaic should be supremely depositive in conveying what the Holy Spirit wished to convey in Holy scripture.

The Church in her wisdom canonized the Greek,

Some criticize the Vulgate and say that it should not hold any precedence when one searches in translating the bible ancient original language texts–although the Catholic Church does not teach that.

Pope Pius XII held the original languages to have MORE AUTHORITY than the Vulgate or any translation.

Some of those same people though would have no problem with accepting what any particular Greek variant would say–if the Vulgate is not what Jesus originally said–why would a Greek translation of what he originally said in Aramaic or Hebrew BE WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID?

What, sir, did Jesus say in Aramaic or Hebrew? And there are no Greek variant readings. All readings say “metanoia.”

So NO! One should not accept that what Jesus ACTUALLY SAID should be confined to the English translation of the Greek word “Metanoia”.

What, again, sir, did he say in Hebrew or Aramaic?

And considering the context of Hebrew words and Aramaic words when translating from Greek is not “READING additional things into translation” it is the VERY ESSENCE of true translation!

Beg to differ. You still have not stated what the original Aramaic said. All we have is the Greek which the great Mother Church has accepted as inspired and canonical. Even Matthew, by the way.

Let’s be thankful that the Catholic Church is not that narrow mindded wihen it comes to Holy Scripture!

You’d be surprised how narrow-minded the Church is. Have you read Pope Pius XII yet or will you keep ignoring the great Pope like Ronald Conte?

So again, Mr. Jet. Instead of referring to some strange, hypothetical, nonexistent manuscript, why not put your money where your mouth is and simply tell us, straight away, no Greek, no Latin:

WHAT WORD DID JESUS USE IN ARAMAIC?

Put up. Now.

 

[Whemsworth]

This mistranslation was purely for doctrinal reasons and led to the whole penitential system.

 

[porthos11]

This mistranslation was purely for doctrinal reasons and led to the whole penitential system.

Eight year old thread.

 

[CMacKirnan]

Metanoia is indeed translated as “repentance”; specifically, the Greek word means an interior change, and has little relation to “penance” as commonly understood in today’s English. The present translation of “repent” actually conveys the Greek better.

“Penance” is okay, but only if used in the older sense as in “Sacrament of Penance”, and not the punitive sense that loads today’s English word. If clarity of the Greek is desired, “repentance” is the better choice.

Thank you so much for stating this clearly, and pointing out that the meaning of the English word “penance” has changed. I’m a convert from Evangelical Protestantism, and this bothered me as soon as I began to read the Douay (which wasn’t until I’d been Catholic for about 15 years).

I had been warned I would find this in the Douay. You may or may not be aware that some Evangelical ministries which specialize in trying to convert Catholics use this language difference as a major piece of evidence. They say that translating the word metanoia as “do penance” is clear proof that Catholics don’t think it is necessary to repent of sin – they just believe that if one does enough good works, to please the priest, one will eventually work one’s way to heaven. Here’s an example, and the author of this piece is much better educated than many who teach these things. truthmagazine.com/archives/volume23/TM023272.html

The truth is quite different, but it is extraordinarily difficult to explain that to a Protestant who has been raised with this idea.

 

[Vico]

St. Matthew 3:2 of the Douay-Rheims reads as follows: “Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The New American translates the same verse “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” St. Luke 3:3 of the DR reads: “And he came into all the country about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins.” The NAB translates the same verse “He went throughout [the] whole region of the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”

It is my understanding that the Greek word translated in the DR as “penance” and in the NAB as “repentance” is Metanoia which is defined as a “change of mind.”

The English definition of penance in the Random House College Dictionary is “a punishment undergone in token of penitence for sin.” The same source defines repentance as “remorse or contrition for a sin, wrongdoing or the like; compunction.”

As a “revert” I am confused by the differing English definitions in the two translations when compared to the Greek. Can you help?

Haydock Commentary

1 Now, *in those days cometh John the Baptist, preaching in the desert of Judea,
2 And saying: *Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.3 For this is he, who was spoken of by Isaias the prophet, saying: *A voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.
4 And John himself had his garment of camels’ hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins, and his food was locusts and wild honey.
5 *Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the country about the Jordan:
6 And they were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.
7 And seeing many of the Pharisees, and Sadducees *coming to his baptism, he said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth, therefore, fruit worthy of penance.

Ver. 2. “Desert,” in Greek eremos, hence hermit. St. John the Baptist is praised by St. John Chrysostom, as a perfect model, and the prince of an Eremitical life. (Hom. i. in Mar. and hom. i. in J. Bap.) Several sectarists do not approve of what St. Chrysostom advances in favour of an ascetic life, and doing penance for past sins. (Bristow)

— Do penance.[1] Beza would have it translated repent. We retain the ancient expression, consecrated in a manner by the use of the Church; especially since a true conversion comprehends not only a change of mind, and a new life, but also a sorrow for past offences, accompanied with self-denials, and some severities of a penitential life.

— The kingdom of heaven, which many times signifies the present condition of Christ’s Church. (Witham)

— In this and other places of holy writ, instead of “do penance,” Protestants give “repent ye;” but general use has rendered metanoia, by pœnitentia, or penance; and in this text, not any kind of penance, or grief for sins committed, but that which is joined with a desire of appeasing Him who has been offended by sin; and this also by some external signs and works. For as many as heard this metanoeite, obeyed the voice, received from him the baptism of penance, confessed their sins, and it was said to them: Bring forth fruit worthy of repentance, ver. 8. Therefore, all this was contained in the penance preached by the baptist. And here we must not omit, that while sectarists preach faith alone, both the baptist and Jesus Christ begin their ministry with practising and preaching penance. (Tirinus)

— Pœnitentiam agite, metanoeite. Which word, according to the use of the Scriptures and the holy fathers, does not only signify repentance and amendment of life, but also punishing past sins by fasting, and such like penitential exercises. (Challoner)