Can protestants get forgiveness/reconciliation?

[Ozzie]

jman507:

Actually since it is called the sacrament of Reconciliation, along with the sacrament of confession and the sacrament of Penance, I can go ‘to’ Reconciliation ‘for’ reconciliation.

But the sacrament is FOR reconciliation with God and Church, is it not? So you go to get reconciled (even though God’s immutable Word has told you you’re already reconciled to Him through faith in His Son (if you’re a true believer, that is).

But the question I’d like to ask is what is your definition of faith, and along with how you think Pual is using the term of faith?

Faith in the soteriological sense is “personal trust.” How it is used each time by Paul is based on the context.

 

[Ozzie]

mercygate:

Because it is the Christ-given means of approaching the mystery of my redemption in in a vital RELATIONSHIP with Christ himself.

Can you show me where it’s “Christ-given?” To the contrary, “redemption” is a work accomplished BY CHRIST through His shed blood and applied, in full, to the one who puts his FAITH in Him. It is ordained by God that man receive Christ’s finished work of redemption and reconciliation through FAITH alone. Man has no part in the work of reconciliation. He can only humbly recieve it.

EPH 1:7 “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace…”

That’s the point: Paul forgave him (restored him to fellowship with God and the Church), and he did it in the person of Christ.

There is NOTHING in that account in 1st and 2nd Cor. that states that the man personally “confessed” his sin to Paul. His removal from fellowship was a public display of that church’s abhorrence of his immoral behavior (which is something Rome did not do with its clergy, thus allowing the scandal to go public, disgracing the name of Christ). His restoration to fellowship was because he repented publicly of his immoral behavior. You cannot honestly anachronistically read the fully developed sacrament of "Penance/Reconciliation into that account. Paul teaches no such thing here, nor anywhere in His Epistles.

Have you EVER read a Catholic treatment of the subject? You give absolutely no indication whatsoever that you have any idea of what Catholics really believe.

I have read and studied the Catholic catechism and compared its teachings on its seven sacraments with the plain teachings of the N.T. Scriptures (especially Pauline). I think it’s you, a convert, who fails to comprehend the full extent of the teachings of Rome’s sacramental system. It’s possible you might be imposing some of your own previous Protestant thinking into it.

Ozzie, many of us, including myself, are converts. Our faith in Christ is the greatest treasure of our hearts, and the struggle to embrace the fullness of truth has been the single most compelling theme of our lives.

That’s the problem, you “struggle.” Jesus said, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” Paul said, “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ…” (Rom. 5:1). Rest and peace are found ONLY in Christ, and God has ordained that we approach Him (and His work on the cross) BY FAITH. One will always struggle with sin, salvation and reconciliation to God if he lacks faith in what Christ has already done for him in these specific areas. You run to men to have your sins absolved when, in fact, God Himself has already, forever and completely, dealt with your sins (soteriologically) through the Sacrifice of His Son. His judgment day on sin was 2000 years ago when the unblemished Lamb of God, His own Son, took the heat of your judgment in your stead: “*But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities…but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” *(Is. 53: 5, 6). What has fallen on the Savior cannot fall back on the sinner.

Sacraments don’t inhance one’s faith and confidence in what Christ accomplished for us; to the contrary, they lure us away from the cross and lay the burden of sin and salvation back on our own shoulders (i.e., consequences of “venial” & “mortal” sins). What was Christ’s burden to bear again becomes our burden. Contrary to Rome’s teaching, sin is not the issue this side of the cross - faith is the issue. Believe and be forgiven; believe and be reconciled; believe and be redeemed; believe and live, are fundamental Biblical teachings. “For we walk by faith, not by sight.” The message was always about Christ, never the messengers. Christ Himself, His sacrificial work on your behalf, is your only guarantee of peace with God. The cross is vacant, the tomb is empty, the work is done, now you are required to come to Him BY FAITH, and faith alone (Rom. 4:25- 5:2; cf. Heb. 1:3).

There you go again – assuming that Catholics do not have faith in Jesus Christ.

His work on the cross is what you fail to have faith in.

 

[Curious]

Peter understood his deceitful intention and, you might say, “called him on to the carpet.” Do you REALLY think this parallels the sacrament in question? REALLY??? Does the text go on to state that Peter prayed for him and assigned Simon to repeat 135 “Our Fathers?” Does Peter go on to say to Simon, “your sin is absolved?”

Did you REALLY not read my post? REALLY??? Didn’t I say to read it carefully? Did I not just throw that out because it was a question I had and wanted to discuss? Didn’t I say that? REALLY?

 

[dennisknapp]

Ozzie:

Sacraments don’t inhance one’s faith and confidence in what Christ accomplished for us; to the contrary, they lure us away from the cross and lay the burden of sin and salvation back on our own shoulders (i.e., consequences of “venial” & “mortal” sins). What was Christ’s burden to bear again becomes our burden. Contrary to Rome’s teaching, sin is not the issue this side of the cross - faith is the issue. Believe and be forgiven; believe and be reconciled; believe and be redeemed; believe and live, are fundamental Biblical teachings. “For we walk by faith, not by sight.” The message was always about Christ, never the messengers. Christ Himself, His sacrificial work on your behalf, is your only guarantee of peace with God. The cross is vacant, the tomb is empty, the work is done, now you are required to come to Him BY FAITH, and faith alone (Rom. 4:25- 5:2; cf. Heb. 1:3).His work on the cross is what you fail to have faith in.

Again, what you say in an innovation of the 16th century, but I guess everyone was horribly deceived for 1600 years. Let’s look at history shall we. Let’s see what those who knew the Apostles and those right after them have to say:

The Didache

“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]).

The Letter of Barnabas

“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]).

Ignatius 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).

Irenaeus

“[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]).

Hmmm…Interesting

Peace**

 

[jman507]

Ozzie:

But the sacrament is FOR reconciliation with God and Church, is it not? So you go to get reconciled (even though God’s immutable Word has told you you’re already reconciled to Him through faith in His Son (if you’re a true believer, that is).

Amen, I believe in God’s immutable Word, as well as the Church he set up. I am trying to work out my salvation in fear and trembling but also with love for my Lord who has given me what is true. If I stay faithful and preserve to the end, I will have my salvation.

As said in 1 John 5:16-17 “He who knows his brother is committing a sin that is not unto death, shall ask, ans shall give life to him who does not commit a sin unto death. There is sin unto death; I do not mean that anyone should ask as to that. All lawlessness is a sin, and there is a sin unto death.” I am not assured that I will not committe a sin on to death, since I still have the free will to make that choice. It is like a faithful spouse who know infidiality is just always just a step away.

But if you do committe this sin unto death after you “have been again of water and the Spirit,” (John 3:5ff) how do you get reconciled?

I believe that Jesus sent his apostles to help forgive sins. John 20:21ff “As the Father sent me, I also send you.” Why did God send His Son? Earlier in that gosple is says, John 3:16-17, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that those who believe in him may not perish, but have life everlastink. For God did not send his Son into the world in order to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him.” The Father sent his Son to bring salvation, so he sends his apostles out to help with this salvation.

John 20:22ff “When he said this, he breathed upon them,” Now this should point something to you, something special is going on here. The last time God breathed on someone it brought life to Adam.

John 20:22-23 “and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whos sins you shall retain, they are retained.’” The Father gave the Son the power to forgive sin on earth, now the Son passes this on to the apostles. Not that the apostles have this power to themselves, but it is only through Christ who was crucifed on the cross. This gives the apostles a special mission in the Church and special importance to the apostilic nature of the Church. And remember Christ, (Colossians 1:18ff) “Again, he is the head of his body, the Church; he, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may have the first place.”

But that is what I believe, I could be wrong. But I can put trust in the Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Also it seems there was some idea of this in the early Church, looking at what Dennis put up, as well as other quotes from the fathers on the Catholic Answers site.

 

[jman507]

Ozzie:

Faith in the soteriological sense is “personal trust.” How it is used each time by Paul is based on the context.

Explain what personal trust is in the soteriological sense.

 

[mercygate]

Ozzie:

Can you show me where it’s “Christ-given?” To the contrary, “redemption” is a work accomplished BY CHRIST through His shed blood and applied, in full, to the one who puts his FAITH in Him. It is ordained by God that man receive Christ’s finished work of redemption and reconciliation through FAITH alone. Man has no part in the work of reconciliation. He can only humbly recieve it.

Ozzie, no matter how often we draw your attention to Mt. 16:18-19, Jn 20:21-23, or to the explicit instance of Paul’s forgiving the incestuous man “in the person of Christ,” you fail to grasp the Christ-given concept (aside from whether you accept it) that the Catholic Church holds this Sacrament in trust as her Lord’s gift of personal reconciliation in response to post-baptismal sin.

Is it that you want to see the precise formula of the Sacrament of Penance, as practiced today, fully blown in Scripture? Is that necessary? Specifics and details of practice develop and change without changing the central feature of the Sacrament. For example, perfectly sincere Protestants participate in “the Lord’s supper” using grape juice in tiny little glasses and Wonder Bread or saltine crackers. This little resembles the bread and wine of the last supper and outright deviates from what Our Lord used, but Protestants don’t have a problem with that.

The specifics of the Sacrament of Penance today, including the canonical specifics, such as the inviolability of the seal, the nature of contrition, restitution where possible, and the assignment of a penance (which may often be an act of charity rather than your “135 Our Fathers” – must you be so disrespectful?). Because you do not SEE in Scripture the incestuous man kneeling beside Paul and making an explicit confession with the formula, “Bless me, Father,” you reject the notion that a penitent sinner might ever do such a thing – notwithstanding James 5:16, which migh,t for all we know, describe a group of people openly confessing their sins to the entire congregation [footnote: those people, as was the incestuous man, were “saved.” Hm.]. The key in the passage about the incestuous man was Paul’s personal declaration that he had forgiven the man “in the person of Christ,” just as our priests do today. Of course, you reject this. We **understand **that. But do not pretend that it is not there. Do not pretend that Jesus’ promise, “whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven . . .” is a general announcement of the already accomplished fact – particularly since it follows directly upon the words, “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” Since every breath of the Gospel is a proclamation of reconciliation, it is reasonable to accept the plain sense of the Greek, which specifically indicates that **forgiving **is an active and effective work – that the apostles are being commissioned to what Paul calls “the ministry of reconciliation” as well as to the proclamation of it. Perhaps you view the proclamation and the ministry of forgiveness as the same thing. Catholics make a distinction.

Am I correct in understanding that your view is that we “receive” the work of redemption in a single event? Answer the altar call, accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and that’s it? Never will you sin again? Or if you do, it doesn’t matter because nothing you can do can remove your “salvation.” Catholics, however, understand, with Paul in the epistle to the Philippians, that although the Lord has achieved our redemption, the follow-up on our part is to live in relationship with Christ, to receive the work of redemption with every breath we draw by “working out our salvation with fear and trembling.” That is the consequence of free will. The Lord will never take away our free will because without it we cannot love.

Where in the Bible do the words “faith alone” occur? In the *only *place where those two words appear together, they are preceded by the words “justified . . . not by.” Ozzie, surely someone with such strong convictions as yourself knows that “faith alone” is Luther’s personal invention, an addition to the text of Romans 4. Surely you know that justification by grace through faith, which is the Catholic position, means for those of us who are not on our deathbed, living the truth in joy and not just “believing” it. Otherwise it is, as our Protestant brethren are fond of reminding us, “merely a said faith.”

 

[mercygate]

Ozzie:

I think it’s you, a convert, who fails to comprehend the full extent of the teachings of Rome’s sacramental system. It’s possible you might be imposing some of your own previous Protestant thinking into it.

Huh?

One will always struggle with sin, salvation and reconciliation to God if he lacks faith in what Christ has already done for him in these specific areas.

My “struggle” was with coming to grips with the full message of the Gospel, which I found in the Catholic faith. Until the day I took the first step towards coming into the Church, I did not know what peace was. Since that day, I have known nothing else.

But you imply here that you do not sin. Is that really true? Or do you not “struggle” because sin doesn’t matter?

You run to men to have your sins absolved . . .

Ozzie, you certainly have a way with words.

Sacraments don’t inhance one’s faith and confidence in what Christ accomplished for us; to the contrary, they lure us away from the cross and lay the burden of sin and salvation back on our own shoulders

This is just plain Catholic-baiting. We don’t deserve this from you.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

A ‘Perfect Act of Contrition’ is this prayer (or similar) that is prayed with perfect sorrow and intent. To gain God’s forgiveness you must be sorrowfull for all of your mortal sins. To keep even one sin in your heart is to keep them all for punishment.

This means if you are sorry for all your sins…but still think that commiting adultery was fun (even though you would not do it again) you have no forgiveness as you are NOT truly sorry for your sins. You must also attempt to make reparation for those sins that have hurt others. If you have stolen, you must pay. If you have been uncharitable, do your best to make amends. If nothing else, do good works for charity. If a Catholic, you are still obligated to go to confession as soon as possible.

So you see, an Act of Perfect Contrition is very hard to make.

I disagree.

From Pope St. Pius X:

*Perfect sorrow is a grief of soul for having offended God because He is infinitely good and worthy of being loved for His own sake. *(Catechism of Pius X, Sacrament of Penance)

From Pope John Paul II:

When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). (CCC 1452)

Perfect contriction is sorrow for your sins because you love God above all else. I don’t find such sorrow very difficult at all.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Perfect contrition is not called “perfect” because of the degree of sorrow, but because of the kind of sorrow. Those that think it is rarely possible to have “perfect contrition” make an error, I think, as they seem to imply one’s degree of sorrow must be perfect, and who can be sure of that? That’s an incorrect understanding. The kind of sorrow must arise because of the offense to God, who you truly believe is deserving of our love above all else. You certainly cannot fake sorrow with God. Yet, I know for certain when I am truly sorrowful, and I know for certain why I am sorrowful.

I can certainly have a fear of punishment and loss of heaven (imperfect sorrow) while at the same time be sorry for my sins because my sins offend God, and I love God and he deserves my love above all else (perfect sorrow). Why would this kind of sorrow be rare or nearly impossible for any Christian?

As I see it, if you should pray the following prayer or something like it every time you sin. If you pray the following prayer truthfully, then you can have moral certainty that you have perfect contrition:

O my God, I am heartily sorry for
having offended you, and I detest
all my sins, because of Your just
punishments, but most of all because
they offend You, my God, who are
all good and deserving of all my love.
I firmly resolve, with the help of
Your grace, to confess my sins, to do
penance, to amend my life, and to
avoid the near occasion of sin.
**Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, **
have mercy on me, a sinner.

Even if your sins are remitted due to perfect contrition, it is a precept of the Catholic Church to confess your sins to a priest at least once a year, but once a month is recommended. You may not receive the Holy Eucharist based upon remission of sins from perfect contrition alone. You must canonically refrain from receipt until you receive sacramental absolution (unless grave necessity exists).

I have yet to meet a Christian who believes one can pray the prayer above or something similar, and truly mean it, yet insist that Jesus will refuse His forgiveness.

 

[Katholikos]

The very definition of perfect contrition is contrition arising from perfect love (John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary). Since few – if any – of us love “perfectly,” perfect contrition is extremely rare. My perception of whether I have loved “perfectly” or not is itself imperfect, so anyone who has committed mortal (deadly) sin had best get himself/herself to a priest with the authority to forgive sins in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) – pronto.

JMJ Jay

 

[Ozzie]

Curious:

Did you REALLY not read my post? REALLY??? Didn’t I say to read it carefully? Did I not just throw that out because it was a question I had and wanted to discuss? Didn’t I say that? REALLY?

Sorry “Curious,” I was out of line!!!

 

[Curious]

np ozzie.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Katholikos:

The very definition of perfect contrition is contrition arising from perfect love (John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary). Since few – if any – of us love “perfectly,” perfect contrition is extremely rare. My perception of whether I have loved “perfectly” or not is itself imperfect, so anyone who has committed mortal (deadly) sin had best get himself/herself to a priest with the authority to forgive sins in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) – pronto.

JMJ Jay

Jay,

What does Fr. Hardon say that “perfect love” is? I think he describes what he means in the sentences immediately following.

Fr. Hardon asserts:

CONTRITION. The act or virtue of sorrow for one’s sins. The virtue of contrition is a permanent disposition of soul. However,*** only an act of contrition is required for the remission of sin, whether with or without sacramental absolution.***
The act of contrition is a free decision involving a detestation of and grief for sins committed and also a determination not to sin again. This detestation is an act of the will that aims at past sinful thoughts, words, deeds, or omissions. In practice*** it means that a sinner must retract his past sins, equivalently saying he wished he had not committed them.*** The grief for sins is also an act of the will directed at the state of greater or less estrangement from God that results from sinful actions. Concretely, it means the desire to regain the divine friendship, either lost or injured by sin. There must also be a determination not to sin again, which is an act of the will resolving to avoid the sins committed and take the necessary means to overcome them.

Four qualities permeate a genuine act of contrition and affect all three constituents of the act, the detestation, the grief, and the determination not to sin again. A valid contrition is internal, supernatural, universal, and sovereign.

Contrition is internal when it is sincere and proceeds from the will, when it is not the result of a mere passing mood or emotional experience. It is supernatural when inspired by actual grace and based on a motive accepted on faith. It is universal when the sorrow extends to all mortal sins, and for valid sacramental absolution there must be sorrow for whatever sins are confessed. It is finally sovereign if the sinner freely recognizes sin as the greatest of all evils and is willing to make amends accordingly. (Etym. Latin contritio, grinding, crushing; compunction of heart; from conterere, to rub together, bruise.)

PERFECT CONTRITION. Sorrow for sin arising from perfect love. In perfect contrition the sinner detests sin more than any other evil, because it offends God, who is supremely good and deserving of all human love. Its motive is founded on God’s own personal goodness and not merely his goodness to the sinner or to humanity. This motive, not the intensity of the act and less still the feelings experienced, is what essentially constitutes perfect sorrow. A perfect love of God, which motivates perfect contrition, does not necessarily exclude attachment to venial sin. Venial sin conflicts with a high degree of perfect love of God, but not with the substance of that love. Moreover, in the act of perfect contrition other motives can coexist with the perfect love required. There can be fear or gratitude, or even lesser motives such as self-respect and self-interest, along with the dominant reason for sorrow, which is love for God. Perfect contrition removes the guilt and eternal punishment due to grave sin, even before sacramental absolution. However, a Catholic is obliged to confess his or her grave sins at the earliest opportunity and may not, in normal circumstances, receive Communion before he or she has been absolved by a priest in the sacrament of penance.

If you read ALL of what Fr. Hardon asserts, it is not the intensity of the contrition but the "motive … is what essentially constitute perfect sorrow". In other words, your motives must not be perfect. They can be mixed with fear or gratitude or lesser motives. Yet, the dominant reason for sorrow must be ***love for God. ***If a Christian finds this to be difficult, then they have grave problems indeed.

“*Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life. And I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever.” *(Ps 23) I don’t have to be perfect to be certain of the goodness and mercy of God.

 

[Katholikos]

Dave:

One cannot presume to know that one’s contrition is “perfect.” That is a subjective self-judgment of one’s own motives. Thinking our contrition is “perfect” does not make it so. Therefore, the law of the Church requires confession to an authorized priest as soon as possible, even if one believes he has made an act of "perfect contrition." One cannot lawfully receive the Eucharist until he has confessed and received absolution from a priest. It is the only sure and certain way of being free of mortal sin.

JMJ Jay

 

[Mickey]

Katholikos:

Dave:

One cannot presume to know that one’s contrition is “perfect.” That is a subjective self-judgment of one’s own motives. Thinking our contrition is “perfect” does not make it so. Therefore, the law of the Church requires confession to an authorized priest as soon as possible, even if one believes he has made an act of "perfect contrition." One cannot lawfully receive the Eucharist until he has confessed and received absolution from a priest. It is the only sure and certain way of being free of mortal sin.

JMJ Jay

Exactly! And through Holy Orders, the Priests is a representative of Jesus Christ–and so we are held accountable in all humilty.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Katholikos:

Dave:

One cannot presume to know that one’s contrition is “perfect.” That is a subjective self-judgment of one’s own motives. Thinking our contrition is “perfect” does not make it so. Therefore, the law of the Church requires confession to an authorized priest as soon as possible, even if one believes he has made an act of "perfect contrition." One cannot lawfully receive the Eucharist until he has confessed and received absolution from a priest. It is the only sure and certain way of being free of mortal sin.

JMJ Jay

If you’ve read my posts, I don’t argue against the necessity for the Sacrament of Penance. In fact, I explicitly asserted the obligation to confess and receive sacramental absoltution as soon as possible.

However, between a mortal sin and sacramental absolution, can a Catholic have moral certainty that his sin is forgiven by praying an act of contrition with truth and sincerity? Yes.

The issue of moral certainty in one’s contrition and motives for that contrition are where we disagree. I agree with Fr. Hardon that it is the* motives*, not the intensity of the sorrow that makes it perfect.

We can know with moral certainty what our dominant motives are for our sorrow. I don’t need infallible certainty to have confidence in the promises of Christ.

Otherwise, a caraciture of Catholic teaching is presented that asserts that between a mortal sin and priestly absolution, Catholics ought to believe they are at risk of going to hell if they should get in an accident on the way to confession. This is an unconvincing view of Catholic teaching. It has always been the teaching of Catholicism that perfect contrition remits all sin but DOES NOT relieve us of the binding obligation to go to confession. Your view would make perfect contrition such an practical impossibility that you’ve made it devoid of all its true meaning.

Instead, I base my view on the definition of perfect contrition taught by the Church. It is not based upon *intensity or degree of sorrow *but solely upon the dominant *motive for sorrow. *

According to Catholic Answers apologist Jan Wakelin :
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0001qq.asp

There are two kinds of sorrow for sin: contrition and attrition, which are called also perfect contrition and imperfect contrition. Perfect contrition does not mean the perfect degree of contrition, but the perfect kind of contrition—that is, sorrow for sins based on charity, or supernatural love of God. Imperfect contrition is sorrow for sin based on anything other than charity (such as being sorry for our sins because we fear the punishment of hell and God’s wrath).

Perfect and imperfect contrition are not mutually exclusive. A person can have both at the same time. Both perfect and imperfect contrition assume the resolve to sin no more. Even with this resolve, it is possible to commit the same sin in the future. What is important is that at this moment in time we make a firm resolution to turn away from mortal sin.

Under normal circumstances, for a mortal sin to be forgiven, it must be confessed in the sacrament of penance. If the penitent has perfect or imperfect contrition for his sin, confesses all his mortal sins since his last good confession, resolving not to commit the sin again, and receives absolution from the priest, his mortal sins are forgiven.

What happens if confession to a priest is impossible, and one is close to death or in danger of dying? Provided a person, finding himself in this situation, has perfect contrition for his mortal sins, and resolves not to sin again and receive sacramental confession as soon as possible, his mortal sin is forgiven.

I understand that you disagree with this sense of “perfect contrition,” but I believe it to be contrary to the sense in which the Church herself means by perfect contrition.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Further discussion can be found here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Contrition

Here’s an excerpt:

Perfect contrition, with the desire of receiving the Sacrament of Penance, restores the sinner to grace at once. This is certainly the teaching of the Scholastic doctors (Peter Lombard in P.L., CXCII, 885; St. Thomas, In Lib. Sent. IV, ibid.; St. Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, ibid.). This doctrine they derived from Holy Writ. Scripture certainly ascribes to charity and the love of God the power to take away sin: “He that loveth me shall be loved by My Father”; “Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much”. Since the act of perfect contrition implies necessarily this same love of God, theologians have ascribed to perfect contrition what Scripture teaches belongs to charity. Nor is this strange, for in the Old Covenant there was some way of recovering God’ grace once man had sinned. God wills not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezech., xxxiii, 11). This total turning to God corresponds to our idea of perfect contrition; and if under the Old Law love sufficed for the pardon of the sinner, surely the coming of Christ and the institution of the Sacrament of Penance cannot be supposed to have increased the difficulty of obtaining forgiveness. That the earlier Fathers taught the efficacy of sorrow for the remission of sins is very clear (Clement in P.G., I, 341 sqq.; and Hermas in P.G., II, 894 sqq.; Chrysostom in P.G., XLIX, 285 sqq.) and this is particularly noticeable in all the commentaries on Luke, vii, 47. The Venerable Bede writes (P.L., XCII, 425): “What is love but fire; what is sin but rust? Hence it is said, many sins are forgiven her because she hat loved much, as though to say, she hath burned away entirely the rust of sin, because she is inflamed with the fire of love.” Theologians have inquired with much learning as to the kind of love that justifies with the Sacrament of Penance. All are agreed that pure, or disinterested, love (amor benevolentiæ, amor amicitiæ) suffices; when there is question of interested, or selfish, love (amor concupiscentia) theologians hold that purely selfish love is not sufficient. When on furthermore asks what must be the formal motive in perfect love, there seems to be no real unanimity among the doctors. Some say that where there is perfect love God*** is loved for His great goodness alone***; other, basing their contention on Scripture, think that the love of gratitude (amor gratitudinis) is quite sufficient, because God’s*** benevolence and love towards men are intimately united, nay, inseparable from His Divine perfections***

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So what about Protestants? What does the Church teach regarding Protestants (objectively heretical) and perfect contrition?

The following excerpt from the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia discusses this briefly:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Church

This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark, xvi, 16). Any disciple who shall throw off obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of the heathen: he has no part in the Kingdom of God (Matt., xviii, 17). St. Paul is equally explicit. “A man that is a heretic”, he writes to Titus, “after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he that is such a one is . . . condemned by his own judgment” (Tit., iii, 10 sq.). The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has commanded all to join the Church**,*** and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold. For love of God****** carries with it the practical desire to fulfill His commandments.*** But of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful disobedience to God’s commands. Many are kept from the Church by Ignorance. *Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy. *To others the external means of grace may be unattainable. Thus an excommunicated person may have no opportunity of seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by inward acts of contrition and charity.

 

[Katholikos]

itsjustdave1988 wrote: However, between a mortal sin and sacramental absolution, can a Catholic have moral certainty that his sin is forgiven by praying an act of contrition with truth and sincerity? Yes.

And I say, Yes, a Catholic can have moral certainty that his sin is forgiven by praying an act of perfect contrition with truth and sincerity. But moral certainty is not infallible certainty.

I can and do have moral certainty about my salvation. But I can’t know with infallible certainty until I die and experience the Particular Judgment whether my sure and certain destiny is heaven or hell. I can’t know that I will persevere to the end until the end. I am not the judge of my own soul. Nor am I the judge of my own Acts of Contrition – whether they be perfect or imperfect. What I do have is hope and faith in the mercy of God. Every day, I pray: O my God, relying on Your almighty power and mercy, I sincerely hope to be saved. Help me to do all that is necessary for my salvation.

For you to state that I oppose the teaching of the Church is unwarranted and hurtful. I believe EVERYTHING the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches.

My point is not about motivation or any other aspect of the doctrine, per se. But as I stated: *One cannot presume to know that one’s contrition is “perfect.” That is a subjective self-judgment of one’s own motives. Thinking our contrition is “perfect” does not make it so. *

I can have the moral certainty and the hope that I have made an Act of Perfect Contrition out of pure love, but I cannot not have infallible certainty.

---

---

Therefore, the Church directs me to the confessional at my earliest opportunity and denies me Holy Communion until I have received sacramental absolution. If I had infallible certainty, it would not be necessary for me to receive the Sacrament of Penance.

I wanted to make this point: Forgiveness of mortal (deadly, serious) sin requires (1) perfect contrition [which requires sorrow based on the pure love of God alone] or (2) sacramental confession [requiring sorrow which *may be based, at least in part, on the fear of hell]. Since the Sacrament of Penance (Confession) is not available to Protestants, I didn’t want them to have the impression that salvation is a slam dunk. It takes more than belief to get to heaven – it takes obedience.

What must I do to be saved? Jesus answers: *If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments (Mt 19:17). *

And if you don’t keep the commandments perfectly, get thee to a confessional.

Jay Damien
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!