Question for anyone

[Briguy]

Hmmmmm - no response.

I know I have not stumped everybody. If I do have you stumped just let me know so I don't keep checking this thread for answers. Thanks and God Bless,

Brian

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Jul 21 2005, 09:48 AM']Interesting stuff, thanks for the answers. Here is a follow up question to my first question. Can a person in confession keep asking for another penance or will the priest at some point say take it or leave it? 

I have always said that humans are flawed and that to me is the danger in confession. On one hand the confession is between God/Jesus and the person (the priest being Jesus). On the other hand you have no problem saying that the human priest can flaw the process. Why is God not able to make this sacrament perfect?  If the priest is acting for God, why does God not miraculously (sp? - mind blank) come to the confessional and make the whole thing perfect?  as Catholics you believe a miracle takes place ever time you have Communion (Lord's supper). I am not being a wise guy. I really think that is a good question. God can manifest himself in one sacrament but not in another. You say there is an unbreakable seal but also that there can be flawed men and a flawed process. Just trying to dig deep here and understand. Please just be challanged and not offended. I, by nature, take very deep looks at things to gain understanding. Thanks for helping me take a good look at this.

In Christian love and concern,
Brian
[right][snapback]652288[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Confession is only as good as the intentions of the sinner. The priest is a stand in for Christ. Anything the priest hears, the priest cannot repeat, even if absolution is not given.

As far as the thought that since the Church is being run by men and since men are not perfect that maybe the Church could be wrong says that Christ was wrong. Either the Church is correct on morals and faith or there is no God....

Let me explain....

Christ said that the Church would be guided in all truth by the Holy Spirit. Chist said that He would be with the Church for all time. Christ said that the Church would never be overcome. Christ said that the Church would be like a city on a mountain for the world to see. Christ said those who hear the Church hear Him. Those who reject the Church reject Him. The Scriptures state to remain in unity and to have One Faith.

[quote][b]John 14:16 [/b]
[color=red]And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, [/color]
[b]17 [/b][color=red]the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. [/color]
[b]18 [/b][color=red]I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. [/color]
...
[b]26 [/b][color=red]The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.[/color]

[b]St. Matt 28:18 [/b] Then Jesus approached and said to them, "[color=red]All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. [/color]
[b]19 [/b][color=red]Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, [/color]
[b]20 [/b][color=red]teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age[/color]."

[b]Luke 10:16[/b] "[color=red]He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me[/color]"

[b]Matt 5:13 [/b]
"[color=red]You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.[/color]
[b]14 [/b]    [color=red]You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. [/color]
[b]15[/b]      [color=red]Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. [/color]
[/quote]



Can Christ be wrong? No. If Christ was wrong then that would mean that there is no God.

The only way for what Christ said to be true is if the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ, and that would mean that the Catholic Church is correct on all matters of faith and morals.

If the Catholic Church is not right, then there is no God.

Some like to argue that the bible is speaking to all Christians. If that was so that would mean that there is no God because all Christians contradict each other.... truth cannot contradict truth.... Christ cannot contradict Himself.... If the bible was speaking to all Christians and meaning all Christians then that would mean that the independant baptists, the community baptists, the lutherans, the pentacostals, the Catholic Church, and the church in the garage down the street that has a bible..... all are guided in all truth, or there is no God. If they all were guided in truth they would all agree, or there is no God. Since they all disagree on little things to big things. They cannot be considered one faith because they all have different faiths.... all of this means one of two things....

1) There is no God.
OR
2) The Catholic Church is right.


I know there is a God. I know His Church is the Catholic Church. There is only one Catholic Church which has the successor of Peter as Shepard just as Jesus requested.....

[quote][b]John 21:15 [/b]
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "[color=red]Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?[/color]" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "[color=red]Feed my lambs[/color]."
[b]16 [/b]He then said to him a second time, "[color=red]Simon, son of John, do you love me?[/color]" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "[color=red]Tend my sheep[/color]."
[b]17 [/b]He said to him the third time, "[color=red]Simon, son of John, do you love me?[/color]" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "[color=red]Do you love me?[/color]" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "[color=red]Feed my sheep[/color]."
[/quote]


Humans are flawed, but the Church established by God was not built by Humans and is guided by the Holy Spirit... therefore it can never be wrong. It is the Catholic Church, with Pope Benedict XVI as the successor of Peter.

This is what has been taught since 33 AD. No one believed that the bible was talking to every Christian until about 200 years ago. Think about it, how can it be every Christian if God is real? It can't. And if someone says "well, some are not real Christians.", then who decides who a real Christian is? How do we know who is right? All roads lead to Rome.

Ask yourself why do so many people lie about the Catholic Church and ignore the facts about the Catholic Church that anyone can lookup online.


[quote][b]Pope Clement I[/b]

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

[b] Hermas[/b]

"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

 
[b]Ignatius of Antioch[/b]

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

[b]Hegesippus[/b]

"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

 
[b]Irenaeus[/b]

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2). [/quote]



Listen to what the first Christians have to say about it if you will not listen to us. Please note the dates.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Briguy]

Thanks for the post Iron Monk. A lot was not really related to the questions I was asking but I thank you for the content and the work you put into it. I appreciate your passion. I will hopefully be able to generate some follow up questions. You did not answer my first question. Everyone has kind of dodged it. The question about whether a person in confession can just keep asking for new penance. I'll be back!!

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Jul 25 2005, 09:40 AM']Thanks for the post Iron Monk. A lot was not really related to the questions I was asking but I thank you for the content and the work you put into it. I appreciate your passion. I will hopefully be able to generate some follow up questions. You did not answer my first question. Everyone has kind of dodged it. The question about whether a person in confession can just keep asking for new penance. I'll be back!!
[right][snapback]657975[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The priest has the authority to refuse absolution because if the person is keeps asking for a different penance obviously has no intent of repenting. So if a priest believes the confession not to be pure and the sinner does not have the intention of changing then the sinner is not forgiven. If you think about it, someone who does not intend to change is not seeking forgiveness, but approval.

If someone confesses he is a serial killer or molester, and if he refuses to go to the police or undergo therapy, most people would expect the priest to refuse absolution. Even in this extreme case, the priest must respect the seal of confession.


Refs:
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/EXCOMMUN.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/EXCOMMUN.TXT[/url]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/PENANCE.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/PENANCE.HTM[/url]
[url="http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/penance.htm"]http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/penance.htm[/url]


[quote][b]Canon Law[/b]
Can.  980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.

Can.  981 The confessor is to impose salutary and suitable penances in accord with the quality and number of sins, taking into account the condition of the penitent. The penitent is obliged to fulfill these personally.

Can.  982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority concerning the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.

Can.  983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.

[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3G.HTM"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3G.HTM[/url][/quote]



I hope that helps answer your question.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited July 25, 2005 by ironmonk

[Briguy]

Ironmonk, Above I asked the question about why a miracle does not occur during confession. Lets face it for Connunion and baptism you believe a miracle takes place every time the sacrament is practiced. why not confession? You just said in your long post that Christ can't be wrong. You have said before that the priest acts in Christ's place in terms of hearing sin and giving penance. Why would Jesus not miraculously make the confessional perfect? - leaving no room for a flawded priest to do the wrong thing. That would be logical. It seems if Christ has "real presence" in the bread and wine of communion He could also manifest his presence in something as important as the confessional. At least in terms of perfectly guiding the priest to do exactly what is best for the confesser. Does that make logical sense to you? Why would Christ leave the priest, who is acting on His behalf, the ability to blow it? Why not work directly through the church?

I know, questions questions questions but you can't learn well without them.

In Christ,
Brian

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Jul 27 2005, 09:34 AM']Ironmonk, Above I asked the question about why a miracle does not occur during confession. Lets face it for Connunion and baptism you believe a miracle takes place every time the sacrament is practiced. why not confession?  You just said in your long post that Christ can't be wrong. You have said before that the priest acts in Christ's place in terms of hearing sin and giving penance. Why would Jesus not miraculously make the confessional perfect? -  leaving no room for a flawded priest to do the wrong thing. That would be logical. It seems if Christ has "real presence" in the bread and wine of communion He could also manifest his presence in something as important as the confessional. At least in terms of perfectly guiding the priest to do exactly what is best for the confesser. Does that make logical sense to you?  Why would Christ leave the priest, who is acting on His behalf, the ability to blow it? Why not work directly through the church?

I know, questions questions questions but you can't learn well without them.

In Christ,
Brian
[right][snapback]660681[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thank you for the questions. It is a breath of fresh air to dialog with real questions instead of the Jack Chick type of lies.

Why not a miracle? - Then it wouldn't be a miracle if it happened all the time. God decides when the miracles happen, not us. In theory a priest could blow it, but Judas blew it and he was hand picked by Christ. God works in ways that we do not understand. It's not the priest that blows it but it's the sinner that can blow it. The priest standing in for Christ does not give the priest the powers of Christ. It does not make the priest equal to Christ. Priests go through years of study, prayer, and training... sometimes a priest messes up, but just as in the bible (Acts) when the Church is gathered in council she is guided by the Holy Spirit.

God gave us freewill. We do not have to accept the Grace that He offers.

Here are a few verses to consider....

[b]St John 20:21 [/b]
(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."
[b]22 [/b]And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.
[b]23 [/b]Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

[b]St James 5:14 [/b]
Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord,
[b]15 [/b]and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.
[b]16 [/b]Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.



Confession is not something made up by the Catholic Church, it is something that Christ commanded the Church to do. Why would Christ walk around forgiving sins, give the power to forgive sins to the first disciples, tell the disciples to make disciples, and then take the power of forgiving sins away from the disciples so that no one in the world after Christ died would be able to have their sins forgiven by a disciple? There is nothing in the bible to indicated that the new disciples could not forgive sins.... When we look at history we see that confession has been part of the Christian Faith since 33 AD....


[b]The Didache[/b]

"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).


[b]The Letter of Barnabas[/b]

"You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).


[b]Ignatius of Antioch[/b] student of the Apostle John, Bishop of Antioch

"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).

"For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop" (ibid., 8).


[b]Irenaeus[/b]

"[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses" (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]).

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Confession.asp"]...Read More Here...[/url]


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Briguy]

Hi Ironmonk, hope you are well. listen you quoted this verse:

"16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful"

That obviously does not say it has to be a priest that hears the confession. This is about accountability from one believer to another. Me and you could confess to eachother as well as you could to a priest. Also, there is other things happening here in the context dealing with physical and spiritual healing. You can't tie this only with elders because the priest does not annoint with oil at confession (I think anyway - correct me if I am wrong). Read the verses again, it is the confession that produces forgiveness, not the penance. God forgives the moment we truely repent. He dose not expect anything of us. Remember the man who went into the temple and fell down on his face, he walked away forgiven. No penance, no other person needed. You see we confess to God always and to others at times to help us and hold us accountable.

Also, There is a miracle every time you have communion, Jesus becomes the bread and wine, right? but you said:

""Why not a miracle? - Then it wouldn't be a miracle if it happened all the time. ""

This just does not make sense. If Christ takes the form of bread and wine, it is a miracle and for you it would be said it happens all the time. Please explain the apparent cotradiction in what you are saying. The point is that Jesus should perform a miracle in every confession as well as as in communion and baptism. The difference is in C. and B. it can't be proved that a miracle is not occuring, in confession it could be proved. Make me understand here because it just seems too convienent to me that it worked out this way. Thanks!! Oh and a miracle would trump free will, at least for the actual time in the confessional and the penance given.

In Christ,
Brian

[JP2Iloveyou]

I haven't read this whole thread, I've just scimmed it really. Anyway, a couple of points...

First, penance is not required for validity in the Confessional. The sacrament begins when you say, "Bless me Father for I have sinned..." and ends when the priest says, "Go in peace, your sins are forgiven." The Penance is done later and even if one doesn't do it, it does not somehow negate the absolution given.

Under no circumstances whatsoever is a priest permitted to reveal what was revealed to him in the Confessional. This means he cannot even hint at it. For example, suppose someone told him in Confession that he had gotten drunk the previous night. Suppose he and the priest are at the same party the next day and he is again having a litle to much to drink. The priest cannot even pull him aside privately and counsel him to put his beer down.

A miracle happens every single time a person who is in a state of sin, especially mortal sin, walks into a Confessional. Quoting Scott Hahn here, "When you walk into a confessional in a state of mortal sin and hear a validly ordained Catholic priest pronounce the words of absolution, you have just heard words more powerful than those spoken by God in Genesis 1 when he said, 'Let there be light,' because when God created the Earth, he created the finite. When you receive absolution in a state of mortal sin, God recreated the infinite."

[Briguy]

JP2, thanks for the post.

Let me follow up to what I said before and you answered. Your first point helped make my argument. If the priest would know that the confessor was not going to honor the penance given he would not give the forgiveness, right? Therefore, if Jesus was truely present in the confessional, these things would not happen. The confessor could not pull a fast one on Jesus because He knows all. The miracle would be a true presense of Christ in the confessional (and a perfect confessional because Christ is perfect), the same way you say he miraculously becomes bread and wine. (which btw, when tested still only possess the qualities of bread and wine - just a side note, which does not need to be commented on because it is off topic). Also, if the act of Baptism saves people then that would be a miracle as well. The confessional should not be the exception just because it is tangible.

JP2, I thought the quote you used was very well said and helped me to understand what you believe. Thank you for it.

In Christ and in His love,
Brian

[WillT]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Aug 2 2005, 07:34 AM']JP2, thanks for the post.

Let me follow up to what I said before and you answered. Your first point helped make my argument. If the priest would know that the confessor was not going to honor the penance given he would not give the forgiveness, right?  Therefore, if Jesus was truely present  in the confessional, these things would not happen. The confessor could not pull a fast one on Jesus because He knows all. The miracle would be a true presense of Christ in the confessional (and a perfect confessional because Christ is perfect), the same way you say he miraculously becomes bread and wine. (which btw, when tested still only possess the qualities of bread and wine - just a side note, which does not need to be commented on because it is off topic). Also, if the act of Baptism saves people then that would be a miracle as well. The confessional should not be the exception just because it is tangible.

JP2, I thought the quote you used was very well said and helped me to understand what you believe. Thank you for it.

In Christ and in His love,
Brian
[right][snapback]668379[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


In response to why a miracle dosen't happen every time in confession as it does during the other sacrements, there is a simple answer. It dosen't happen in every other sacrement without fail. Let me explain.

For every sacrement 3 things must be present. They are.
1) Proper form (the words)
2) Proper matter (the stuff)
3) Proper intent (The priest [or lay person for baptism] intends for the sacrement to take place)

So, your example of a miracle happening every Mass during communion would fail if, lets say, the priest was using a Ritz cracker and a glass of apple juice. It would also fail if the priest said "This is your body" or something like that. Also if the priest intends on not transforming the bread and wine into Body and Blood.

Confession works the same way. All three must be present for the sacrement to be valid. Now the propper matter, the "stuff", for confession includes a penitint who is truly sorry for what he has done. If this is not present then the sacrement cannot "work" because it is a neccesity, just like Ritz crackers don't work for Communion. It would also fail if the priest left out the words of absolution (either by refusing them because of a lack of repentence or by accidentaly forgetting them), or again if the priest specifically intends not to do the sacrement.

The same holds for all the sacrements. You can't baptise with Coke, the Bishop can't use peanut butter to anoint you in confirmation, a woman can't be ordained, two men (or women) can't be married, and the priest again could not use peanut butter to anoint you during the Annointing of the Sick.

So, to sum up the answer to your question, a miracle does happen every time a sacrement is validly done, but sacrements are not some kind of "magic ritual" that works just because you are going through the motions. We all must follow God's rules, and these are a part of that. The reson this comes up more with confession is because the validity relies quite a bit on us, where as with the other sacraments we are not as intimately involved in the validity .

I hope this answered your question. If anything is confusing, let me know. And if any of the Church Scholors etc. see something wrong in this post, please correct me.

[Briguy]

Hi Will, your answer was about as good as it could of been given what this discussion is about. Yet still, for confession as a sacrament, it seems your argument is working backward. instead of the miracle causing the sacrament to be in order, you are saying that everything being in order causes the miracle. Perhaps our definitions of what a miracle is are different. Your logic is good and I love logic. In a way though it seems convienent as well. That does not make it invalid just cause me to think harder about it and wonfer more. It just seems to me that when the person would enter the confessional, Christ would enter at that point and not when the priest says the correct words. I do understand that if the confessor has no intention of repenting that Christ would not come in real presense because the confession would not be real, it would just be ceremonial. Since Jesus knows everything before it happens He would know ahead of time what confessions He would have to show up at (so to speak). But why would he not manifest His presense in a way that would cause the confessional to meet the miracle criteria each time?

Infant Baptism does not incorporate the free will of the child so confession would not have to incorporate free will either, technically speaking.

Sorry about the random rambling, this post was kind of one of those thinking out loud kind of things.

God Bless,
Brian

[Brother Adam]

[quote]It just seems to me that when the person would enter the confessional, Christ would enter at that point and not when the priest says the correct words.[/quote]

Christ is certianly everywhere always, but perhaps we are viewing our understanding of the sacrament from the wrong angle.

"What is this Sacrament called?

It is called the sacrament of conversion, because it makes sacramentally present Jesus' call to conversion, the first step in returning to the Father from whom one has strayed by sin.

It is called the sacrament of Penance, since it consencrates the Christian sinner's personal and ecclesial steps of conversion, penance, and satisfaction." CCC 1423

Our question is not, "Is Christ present" for we know from St. Paul that "Where sin is, grace abounds all the more, which makes Christ indeed very present in the local strip club as well as in the confessional, but rather, how is the grace of God manifested in a Christians confession to God. We know through the parables of Christ, especially the Prodigal Son, that it is possible as members of the New Covenant People of God, the visible kingdom here on earth, to revoke our inheritance and go to the path of destruction. Through the teachings of Jesus and St. Paul we know that God not only wants us to return to Him, he is actually waiting eagerly for us to return. The father in the story of the Prodigal son was able to see the son while he was still 'a long way off'. When we go astray God is still looking for us.

A few scriptural passages that are worth looking up: Matt 9:2-8, Jn 20:23, Jn 20:22, 2 Cor 5:17-20, James 5:13-15, James 5:16, Mt 18:18, 1 Jn 5:16

"Only God forgives sins (Mk 2:7). Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authroity on earth to forgive sins" and exercies this diveine power: "Your sins are forgiven". Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name." CCC 1444

"The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God." CCC 1445

A reading of the entire section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Confession would be well worth while for anyone who has not read it. We must always understand our salvation in light of the New Covenant, in which our salvation is found, and we must understand the New Covenant as a fulfillment of the old.

Edited August 3, 2005 by Brother Adam

[WillT]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Aug 3 2005, 07:51 AM']Hi Will, your answer was about as good as it could of been given what this discussion is about. Yet still, for confession as a sacrament, it seems your argument is working backward. instead of the miracle causing the sacrament to be in order, you are saying that everything being in order causes the miracle. Perhaps our definitions of what a miracle is are different. Your logic is good and I love logic. In a way though it seems convienent as well. That does not make it invalid just cause me to think harder about it and wonfer more. It just seems to me that when the person would enter the confessional, Christ would enter at that point and not when the priest says the correct words. I do understand that if the confessor has no intention of repenting that Christ would not come in real presense because the confession would not be real, it would just be ceremonial. Since Jesus knows everything before it happens He would know ahead of time what confessions He would have to show up at (so to speak). But why would he not manifest His presense in a way that would cause the confessional to meet the miracle criteria each time?

Infant Baptism does not incorporate the free will of the child so confession would not have to incorporate free will either, technically speaking.

Sorry about the random rambling, this post was kind of one of those thinking out loud kind of things.

God Bless,
Brian
[right][snapback]669670[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Good points there Briguy. That post really made me think a lot! I love that!

After reflecting for a long time on this, I had sort of an epiphany. I don't know if this is in line with Chuch teaching, so I could very well be wrong here. (Someone please correct me if I am off-base.) Two main points here that actually connect in the end.

1)The usual way God acts on us is through the Holy Spirit, so in the example of confession, the Holy Spirit moves the penitant to first of all be sorry for his sins, and secondly to decide to make things right with God through a sacremental confession. Also, it is the Holy Spirit that works through the priest to actually forgive the sins of the penitant. So, it seems to me that the Holy Spirit would be present in every confession offering forgiveness. However, if the penitant is un-repentant (ie. not willing to change, etc.) then he is in fact rejecting the Holy Spirit's offer of forgiveness. Also, if the priest withholds absolution, then he is rejecting his God-given "ability" or "duty" (for lack of better terms) to allow the Holy Spirit to work through him. This could be done, again, for only a few reasons. (a) he knows the penitent to be un-repentant, therefore following Christ's words "those whose sins you retain are retained." or (b) He forgets, at which point a simple reminder would I'm sure be sufficient, or the worst case senario © he refuses out of malice, commiting a grave sin himself and at which point you should find another priest to confess to.

2) After thinking about your version of confession, where Christ performes a miracle every time causing the sinner to always be sorry for his sin, that seems to negate free will. I don't know how you view free will, but from the Catholic viewpoint (again as I understand it, someone correct me if I'm wrong) by Christ working a miricle every time someone enters the confessional, then confession would be a sort of "magic trick." This type of confession would be what many protestants actually accuse catholics of believing, essentially that you go into a little booth, tell a priest what you've done and BAM you're forgivin even if you were un-repentant.

For example, in your confession senario, if I murdered a guy, didn't care that what I had done was gravely sinful, fully intended to do it again later that day (think "The Godfather" here), but knowing that God considered it a sin decided to go to confession "just to be safe" (or because "it's how I was raised" or any other non-genuine reason) then the Holy Spirit would work a miracle and I would suddenly be repentant against my will, therefore even removing my ability to truly repent!

So in short, I didn't explain well in my previous post that I do think Christ is present and offering forgiveness from the beggining, not just at the words of the priest, but we can always refuse God's grace freely given. Also, this is why I think that your interpretation of how sacremental confession should work is flawed. It negates free will, having the Holy Spirit force repentence on us even if we don't neccesarily want to repent. Therefore we cannot refuse God's Grace as we all have at one time or another.

As for why free will is incorporated in confession and not in Infant Baptism goes to the heart of what Catholics believe about sin and baptism. There is venial and mortal sin. A venial sin being a "small sin" where you essentially only stumble, and mortal sin being a "large sin" in which you completely fall from grace. Now in order to commit a mortal sin, you must know that what you are doing is in fact a grave sin. God would not hold us responsible for what we don't know, so if I don't know that killing someone is a grave sin, then God would not hold me to an equal standard of one who knows that murder is a grave sin, but does it anyway. So, for someone to need a sacremental confession, he must have reached the age of reason, where he knows the difference between right and wrong and has the mental faculties to decide between the two. On the other hand, Original Sin does not neccesitate free will, it is inherited. Because of this, it is necessary to be "reborn of water and the Spirit" (Baptism) as an infant to be cleansed of this sin. Just as no free will on the part of the infant caused the stain of Original Sin, no free will on the part of the infant is needed for baptism, the cleansing of Original Sin.


Well, I hope this is at least understandable Briguy. It was sort of off the top of my head, so I would welcome any questions/clarifications etc. Also, I wanted to say thank you for bringing up such challenging points, and for always remaining charitable. I know from experience that sacremental confession is one of those debates that can get pretty heated betweeen Catholics and Protestants, but you have remained civil in every post I've seen in this thread, so thank you!

Edited August 4, 2005 by WillT

[Briguy]

Hi Will, Thanks for your kind words. I think the reason that some protestants get upset with confession and other Catholic doctrine is that they don't debate with the idea that they may learn something and grow in knowledge of God. I ask what I ask and challange because I want to know the answers and the reasons behind the answers. I defend Catholic teaching to my wife and other believers at times because they will say things that just are not true about real Catholic doctrine. Anyway, I don't think of myself as anything but a Christian. I don't think titles other then "Christian" are needed for anybody who is a believer. I attend a non-denominational church. I do believe however, that the Bible is God's written authority on all matters.

Couple quick points. To make "water and spirit" in John 3 equal Baptsim is like stretching a gumby figurine into Batman. It takes lots of stretching and adjusting and still it doesn't look good in the end. The most logical interpretation of what Jesus was talking about was simply that there is two births, a physical one and a spiritual one. One happens in water, that is the water of the womb. In fact saying that a womans "water" broke is still a figure of speech. I believe this because the next verse says so. It says that flesh gives bitrth to flesh and spirit to spirit. When we have a verse and an explanation in the next verse we need to take the first verse at its face value. The water is defined in the next verse as the "flesh" in terms of birth. To me it is a slam dunk but some, like you, see it as baptism and others also see it as "God's Word".

Need to end this now, will be back to add more later.

Thanks again for the kind posts and good answers.

In Christ,
Brian

[desertwoman]

[quote name='IXpenguin21' date='Jul 11 2005, 08:14 AM']i agree...
there was a case similar to this in NY a few years ago.

a man confessed to a murder and received absolution.  a different man was tried for the crime and convicted.

years passed and the murderer died.  the priest then came forth and said that he had heard the confession of the real killer and that the innocent man in jail should be released.

after a few weeks, the innocent man was free.
[right][snapback]639247[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]




You mean that I could be innocent, while the man who did it is free, and I"m locked up. Away from my family, family suffering, I"m suffering (physically mentally, emotionally), my record will always have a stain on it even though I didn't do anything, and someone knew that the police has the wrong person.