Can a priest temporarily forgive sins?

[Sir_Knight]

The CCC and Canon Law address confession – which is the topic of this discussion. How does RS2004? If it doesn’t, what is the point of bringing it into this discussion?

 

[Walking_Home]

It may help reading RS-2204 before asking if it addresses the topic of confession.

See sections : 32 --76–80–81–86–87

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

 

[baltobetsy]

I alluded to another thread in which Sir Knight very strongly defends the ability of a priest to determine the number of EMHCs needed based on his (that is, the priest’s) comprehensive training. He has argued very strongly that the priest could not possibly be wrong about such a decision. Then, in this thread, he has questioned the ability of the priest to make a pastoral decision regarding Communion before Confession. When I analyzed this glaring inconsistency, what I found was that Sir Knight agreed with the priest in the first instance and disagreed with him in the second, which calls into question his assertion that a priest’s training gives him everything he needs to make important decisions for his parishioners.

For the record, I would probably have done the same as Sir Knight did in waiting to receive until after confessing my mortal sin. But I have a habit of questioning priests and their decisions, whereas Sir’s recent posts show him giving them his complete trust based on their training. I trust the priest when I agree and question him when I don’t. Maybe we’re really all the same.

Betsy

 

[bear06]

Sigh! This getting a little off-topic. Can we all provide links or quotes to the teachings brought up (or accusations made for that matter)? I, personally, don’t care who said what on another thread if I can’t easily find that conversation to verify.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I alluded to another thread in which Sir Knight very strongly defends the ability of a priest to determine the number of EMHCs needed based on his (that is, the priest’s) comprehensive training. He has argued very strongly that the priest could not possibly be wrong about such a decision. Then, in this thread, he has questioned the ability of the priest to make a pastoral decision regarding Communion before Confession. When I analyzed this glaring inconsistency, what I found was that Sir Knight agreed with the priest in the first instance and disagreed with him in the second, which calls into question his assertion that a priest’s training gives him everything he needs to make important decisions for his parishioners.

As I already explained, I agreed with the priest in the first instance because church law called for a determination to be made and I argued that a priest was better qualified to make such a determination than a lay person. I disagreed with the priest in the second instance because church teaching did not call for any such determination and the actions of the priest seemed to be in contradiction to church teaching.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please return to the original topic, everyone. And please confine discussion to what is posted in this thread only. Thank you.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Th priest was not “temporarily” forgiving anything, he just was recognizing the reality of your state as indicated by your presence … the formality of the confessional could come after mass …

he did not “temporarly forgive sins” and he did not violate canon law and he did not tell people they were free to receive communion in the state of mortal sin and go on their merry way.
would you be much happier if he penalized them because he was too late to hear all the confessions?

The problem isn’t necessarily wrong in what he *said - *since he didn’t explicitly say every single person under every circumstance could receive communion, but we can certainly find fault with what he didn’t say about the situation of those waiting to confess grave sins. By not making a distinction, he did implicitly give permission to those with mortal sins on their souls to receive the Eucharist, and given the state of catechesis today, that could very easily have happened. By making a blanket statement that those in line could receive communion and then come back for confession after Mass, he did indeed tell anyone waiting to confess a mortal sin that it was alright to receive. He may not have meant to, but that’s precisely what he did. And in the case of anyone who may have had mortal sin, confession and absolution are far from a formality that can wait - despite the theoretical possibility of perfect contrition and reception, the law forbids such practice outside of grave necessity.