Confession and Communion

[Reader_Arsenios]

Hey-ho, Arsenios, long hours of reading are before you if you want to go through all the councils and changes in practice since then…
I guess the “how” is somewhere in the well of the past, it will be tough to dig it out. That is my constant problem with the “back to the old ways” attitude: people just don’t realise how long a journey they would have to travel to get back to the old ways. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years. So very, very long. People then and today - so very, very distant and different.

Buried in the tomes of time, yes??

It sure seems to have gotten actually reversed from how it actually started out, where mortal sins took one out of Communion for many years, that they by shame and contrition and askesis should find their way back to reconciliation with the faithful whom they have wronged by their willful and sinful actions…

Now, all they have to do is confess and feel bad and they are told they are good to go to Communion because, apparently, by their receiving of Communion, they will somehow find more strength to resist committing the same sin again…

Arsenios

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

‘Mere’ confession and absolution?

Yes - In the early Church, confession and absolution of serious sins were but the beginning of what it took to re-establish the one who had committed them into Communion… Confession and absolution were not enough…

‘Mere’ confession and absolution were sufficient to get the Good Thief into Paradise with Christ - as you were told on the other thread and obstinately choose not to believe.

That took Christ Himself in Person, and not merely confession and absolution - Indeed, there is no ‘absolution’ recorded in either Scripture or Tradition… You may argue, by backwards logic, that it was IMPLIED… And I would sorta agree… But if you read my response, there was a LOT more going on in that action than mere confession and absolution…

We don’t ‘earn’ forgiveness by the length or severity of our penance - it is a freely given gracious gift of God the moment one sincerely feels sorrow for their sin. Like the father of the Prodigal Son who forgave the son the moment he expressed sorrow. Perhaps that’s why the practice was altered - people became unnecessarily concerned that their penance hadn’t been long enough for them to ‘earn’ forgiveness :hmm:

I agree whole heartedly… The forgiveness is not in question, which comes with absolution, and the sin is utterly and totally forgiven… THEN what needs to happen, that the person become reconciled and re-entered into Communion with the Church, is the healing and strengthening of his or her soul, mortally wounded by a grave sin… THAT is the purpose of the time and the tears and the ascetic efforts…

As for Communion ‘consuming the unworthy’ - are you daring to say that ANYONE is genuinely worthy to receive Communion? We all, even the most grace-filled, proclaim our unworthiness in ritual fashion at every single Mass!

Yes, that is a part of the preparation, the confession of sinfulness and unworthiness, and the beseeching of our Mother and Father to make us worthy without condemnation to partake… We do not claim worthiness, but instead claim obedience to the Church and the absence of any mortal sin having occurred…

Yet your argument here would seem to be with Paul:

1Co 11:29
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

For though ourselves unworthy, we venture to dare to eat and drink of the Holy Fire of the Body and Blood of the Master worthily, which means in accordance with the statutes of the Church…

And IF one has committed a serious sin, one has no business whatsoever receiving Communion without first confessing it and then following the directions of their Priest… And normally, that means being withdrawn from Communion for some period of time… And yes, there CAN be exceptions… But you are describing the RULE - And indeed, it is only in the case of the murder of a baby that Communion is withheld for any time at all… Sex with goats, murder of grandmothers, and sodomy can be simply confessed, felt bad about, and straight to the cup…

It just seems a lot more than merely a little strange, that’s all…

Arsenios

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I can’t give you a full answer as to why the structure of the Sacrament of Penance changed, but I have found an answer as to why communion was not received for very long periods after the confession. It appears from this article that absolution was given after penance and some of the penances back then were severe. It appears that penance did indeed last for years in some cases. Thus, the penitent would not be able to receive communion until absolution were granted. As to the exact reason this changed, I cannot say. I would speculate that over the years, the Church deepened its understanding of this Sacrament and changed the form accordingly. Somewhat similar is the frequent reception of the Eucharist. Nowadays the Eucharist can be received daily (actually more than once in a day under the right circumstances). Just a few hundred years ago, that was not the case. Likewise, I would speculate the other Sacraments have changed as well, over the years, as the Church has grown in understanding. This is just a guess, however, I haven’t researched the history of each Sacrament, but I’ll bet there have been at least some changes in each of them.

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

I can’t give you a full answer as to why the structure of the Sacrament of Penance changed, but I have found an answer as to why communion was not received for very long periods after the confession. It appears from this article that absolution was given after penance and some of the penances back then were severe. It appears that penance did indeed last for years in some cases.

Thank-you Prayer Warrior!

So here is my next question:

Regarding these “severe penances” - WHY were they given? Was it to adequately punish the offender for his offence? [eg retributive?] Or was it understood as salvific and healing for the one wounded so sorely by sin? [eg therapeutic?]

And here, from the article you presented, from the pen of St. Cyprian of Carthage, is a hint:

---

“inners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time [of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]” (Letters 9:2 [A.D. 253]).

“And do not think, dearest brother, that either the courage of the brethren will be lessened, or that martyrdoms will fail for this cause, that penance is relaxed to the lapsed, and that the hope of peace * is offered to the penitent. . . . For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given” (ibid., 51[55]:20).

---

The purging of sin from the soul, you see, is by repentance, and it is clearly in response to repentance that the absolution is properly offered… And when a person does not have absolution, because the penance has not been fulfilled, then IF he receives, it is to his falling guilty of the Blood and the Body of the Lord.

And THIS is why it is NOT proper to give absolution without repentance by fulfillment of penance, and it is why the theory that is now being practiced is wrong that states that by giving one Communion, one is HELPING them to repent… For indeed, one is HINDERING them, by having the partake unworthily…

Interesting issue…

Arsenios

Arsenios*

 

[Ghosty]

Orthodoxy STILL, you see, understands the Communing of a person who has just committed and confessed a serious sin to be most decidedly NOT beneficial for his soul, but destructive, as Paul indicated in a pastoral epistle…

I’m not so sure this is true. Where are you getting this? It is my understanding that the opposite is true, namely that in traditional Eastern Orthodoxy you CAN’T receive the Eucharist unless you’ve Confessed very recently, as in the day before.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

I’m not so sure this is true. Where are you getting this? It is my understanding that the opposite is true, namely that in traditional Eastern Orthodoxy you CAN’T receive the Eucharist unless you’ve Confessed very recently, as in the day before.

Peace and God bless!

Recent confession is a good thing, and each of us is given a frequency of confession according to our particular need… Russians very frequently confess just before Communion… But these are for minor sins - Negligences, small trip-me-ups, omissions, failure to get ALL one’s prayers prayed [due to being tired, perhaps]… This sort of thing… But IF you go up to your Russian Priest at the icon of Christ at the front of the Nave of the Church, and confess that you have just come from raping your 5 year old niece, you will NOT receive absolution and Communion, but will be held far from it for a long time, so that your soul can heal… For that matter, a Priest who commits such a sin is not allowed to DO the Service of the Divine Liturgy… He is taken away from the Communion services…

We do not just wave a priestly magic wand of absolution at serious sins and go ahead and give Communion anyway to the one who has just committed murder, or another serious and mortal sin… Those require a LOT of repentance to regain standing in the line of Communion…

You look familiar… Did you ever post under the handle Liturgy-Nazi? [eg zealous reformer of the liturgy?]

Arsenios

 

[Ghosty]

You look familiar… Did you ever post under the handle Liturgy-Nazi?

Absolutely not! I would never, ever use such a hideous handle.:bigyikes:

Thanks for the answer, though. I don’t know if it’s the same in other Eastern Orthodox Churches, I’ll have to ask.

Peace and God bless!

 

[LilyM]

Priestly magic wand? You can’t call the graces of the Sacrament of Confession a magic wand.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

The purging of sin from the soul, you see, is by repentance, and it is clearly in response to repentance that the absolution is properly offered… And when a person does not have absolution, because the penance has not been fulfilled, then IF he receives, it is to his falling guilty of the Blood and the Body of the Lord.

And THIS is why it is NOT proper to give absolution without repentance by fulfillment of penance, and it is why the theory that is now being practiced is wrong that states that by giving one Communion, one is HELPING them to repent… For indeed, one is HINDERING them, by having the partake unworthily…

Interesting issue…

Arsenios

Arsenios

I’m not sure I follow you. I’m sure you know that during our confession, we must be repentent of our sins. So, repentence is indeed required prior to receiving absolution. Most priests make one say an Act of Contrition or other prayer of repentence. In truth, no amount of penance could ever make us worthy to receive Him. It is only God’s grace and forgiveness that makes us worthy to approach communion. We receive His forgiveness when we are absolved of our sins at confession after we show repentence.
Acts of penance assigned by the priest are not used to obtain God’s forgiveness, their purpose is to purge us from the temporal punishment that is due for the sin. It is certainly important to perform our acts of penance.

As to why the acts of penance are no longer as severe, I do not know for sure. I read here that in the earliest days (when confession was still public) the sacrament was only allowed once in a lifetime, so most people waited until their death beds to receive it. Perhaps that is why things were changed at the Fourth Lateran Council (see link). I’m a little busy now, but perhaps if you research the Fourth Lateran Council you’ll find some more info as to why things changed.

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

Priestly magic wand? You can’t call the graces of the Sacrament of Confession a magic wand.

I would never call them that…

What I am suggesting here is that to USE the Sacrament of Confession as a SUBSTITUTE for repentance and then to IMMEDIATELY give Communion to one who has committed a grave and mortal sin is neither Patristic, therapeutic, nor wise… [As a general matter, of course… There are always exceptions…]

Arsenios

 

[jedimasterham]

As the people in “Jesus Camp” said, “magic is for warlocks, and warlocks are evil!” I think that confession needs to be substituted for psychotherapy, and communion with placebo. This would make much more sense overall

 

[clmowry]

Are you saying that for the most serious of sins (murder, adultery, rape etc.) that exclusion from the Eucharist was the explicitly prescribed penance and further that it was explicitly taught by the Church that receiving the Eucharist was somehow not “good for” someone who had commited a great sin even though they had received absolution? And now the Church teaches that it is “good for” them?

Is that the “Reversal.”

If it is, then I missed the data that supported the initial conclusion that would require the “Reversal”.

Maybe you could point me back to that data.

Thanks,

Chuck

Hi, Chuck
I appreciate your guess-work, and I would agree with you if you were to argue that the penances have been made less for serious sins. But this is not the case…

You see, it is not that the penances have been reduced, but that they have been REVERSED… So that now, a mortal sin is given Communion immediately upon confession AS THE CURE for the wounding of the soul that it caused… And before, communion was withdrawn from someone so mortally wounded, that they might heal enough to then receive Communion…

iow - As with Baptism, it is not given until someone entering the Church is prepared for it, and they are not baptized so as to BECOME prepared, but instead prepare so that they can BE baptized… And likewise in the early Church, when someone who has been baptized commits a grave sin, then that person is withdrawn from Communion until he is again prepared, through penance, to receive Communion… And it is not the case that he is GIVEN Communion that he should be more ABLE to prepare, because of the NATURE of Communion, for the Holy Mysteries are a Holy Fire consuming the unworthy…

I don’t see a way around the REVERSAL that has occurred in the Roman confession… It is not just a letting up of standards that may be too stringent, but is instead a reversal of the whole approach to the Eucharist…

Arsenios

 

[Tom]

The early Church withheld Communion from those who committed and then confessed serious sins. The terms of this deprivation were commonly 8, 12, 18, or 25 years, and some even for life.

For which serious sin? Was there a table the priest used? “ Let’s see now, three murders at 2 years each, plus one adultery at 3 years, you owe us 9 years”. Were all serious sins treated by all priests dealt with in the same fashion? Padre Pio who lived recently, certainly not the ancient Church was known to refuse absolution to those who were not serious, seems like a possible lifetime. Curious. You say the these terms (years) were common? where did you find this, I’d like to research it.

 

[Tom]

I think you are right, that the understanding of grace received in the Sacrament [of Confession] is now different from what it was then. In the early Church, salvation was seen to be served by the withdrawal from Communion, and today, by the giving of it, in the same circumstances…
How did that change?
Arsenios

I think your assumption, that salvation was served by withdrawal, is incorrect. Mind giving some reference?

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

"Reader Arsenios:

The purging of sin from the soul, you see, is by repentance, and it is clearly in response to repentance that the absolution is properly offered…

I’m not sure I follow you. I’m sure you know that during our confession, we must be repentant of our sins. So, repentance is indeed required prior to receiving absolution. Most priests make one say an Act of Contrition or other prayer of repentance. In truth, no amount of penance could ever make us worthy to receive Him. It is only God’s grace and forgiveness that makes us worthy to approach communion. We receive His forgiveness when we are absolved of our sins at confession after we show repentance.

Well, you might be right. Expression of remorse, feeling bad and guilty for what we have done, and resolving not to do it again, are all well and good for the small and normal and daily sins that we all commit… And these sins are indeed adequately handled by mere confession and absolution, for the repentance is built into the contrition and is sufficient for them…

But at issue is MAJOR sins… For these days, they are treated, in terms of receiving of Communion, as the MINOR sins used to be treated…

Acts of penance assigned by the priest are not used to obtain God’s forgiveness, their purpose is to purge us from the temporal punishment that is due for the sin. It is certainly important to perform our acts of penance.

Well, then we agree at least that penance does not obtain forgiveness. And then where we diverge is, perhaps, to be seen in the PURPOSE of penance… You would seem to be understanding it as punishment for the purpose of avoiding the [far worse] punishments of Purgatory, which, of course, have no place in the Orthodox Church… We, on the contrary, regard the imposition of penances, and their voluntary reception and acceptance on the part of the one confessing grave sins, as being THERAPEUTIC in nature, and not punitive in the sense of retributive justice…

And this is the reason that we see your focus on repentance as punishment to avoid greater punishment as missing the mark of the beneficial healing of the soul wounded by serious sinning…

As to why the acts of penance are no longer as severe, I do not know for sure. I read here that in the earliest days (when confession was still public) the sacrament was only allowed once in a lifetime, so most people waited until their death beds to receive it.

Actually, I think the article stated that their delaying of confession until their death-bed was to avoid penance, and for this, one can only weep…

Perhaps that is why things were changed at the Fourth Lateran Council (see link). I’m a little busy now, but perhaps if you research the Fourth Lateran Council you’ll find some more info as to why things changed.

In commentating upon Canon 102 ot the Sixth Ecumenical Council, St. Nikodemos says the following: “After this Council had decreed concerning many different penances, lastly in the present Canon it leaves everything to the judgment of the bishops and Spiritual Fathers and the authority to bind and to loose, saying that they ought to conjecture, or surmise, both the quality of the sinfulness, whether it be pardonable or mortal, and the disposition of the sinner with respect to repentance, and thus to offer the right treatment for his illness; lest by giving persons who are magnanimous and willing to repent lenient penances, and persons who are more unconcerned and pusillanimous on the contrary extreme penances, they fail to correct either the former or the latter, but rather wind up losing both… The whole aim both to God and to the Spiritual Father is simply this, to bring the return of the straying sheep, the sinner, to cure the one who has been wounded or hurt by the figurative serpent commonly called the devil, and neither to drive him to despair by heavy penances, nor again to let him take the bit in his teeth, like a horse, by light penances…[etc.]” Taken from "EXOMOLOGETARION, a Manual of Confession…

The reduction of severity in penances is appropriate for those “who are more unconcerned and pusillanimous” regarding their sins, that they be cured, yet the matter was in whole and in part placed at the feet [hands, actually] of the particular bishops and Spiritual Fathers who would be DISCERNING which course was appropriate in the particular cases… eg the Rule was a guide, not a matter of Canon Law… yet in all cases, the Rule had to entail SOME healing balm of penance… And this meant, invariably, for serious sins, the withdrawal from Communion until the penance was completed…

Never were serious sins treated as small and daily sins…

Arsenios

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Well, then we agree at least that penance does not obtain forgiveness. And then where we diverge is, perhaps, to be seen in the PURPOSE of penance… You would seem to be understanding it as punishment for the purpose of avoiding the [far worse] punishments of Purgatory, which, of course, have no place in the Orthodox Church… We, on the contrary, regard the imposition of penances, and their voluntary reception and acceptance on the part of the one confessing grave sins, as being THERAPEUTIC in nature, and not punitive in the sense of retributive justice…

My point was indeed that penance does not obtain forgiveness and perhaps my wording could have been better. I do not see it as punishment for the purpose of avoiding punishment in Purgatory. That would seem to be rather dishonorable, in my view. The whole point of the Sacrament is to reconcile us to God. That should be every person’s goal (not just getting out of trouble, so to speak, but truly configuring ourselves to Christ) Imposed penance is part of that process. I would view penance as multi- dimensional in purpose. It is our opportunity to show our love for God, true sorrow for our sins and to atone for our sins. Penance gives God the opportunity to pour His graces into our soul which sanctifies or purifies us. IF we are not fully purified prior to our death, we will be purified in purgatory (Catholics believe) prior to entrance into heaven. That is what I meant by purging temporal punishment. I certainly did not want to imply that we look on penance as a punishment to avoid a larger punishment by God. To the contrary, acts of penance should be voluntary and enthusiastically performed to show our love for God.

Actually, I think the article stated that their delaying of confession until their death-bed was to avoid penance, and for this, one can only weep…

If you are correct, then I would weep with you. However, the article says that “This early rite of reconciliation, however, could be received only once in a lifetime and involved a process that could take years. Severe penances were also given. As a result, Christians generally postponed reception of the sacrament until they were on their deathbeds.” If Reconcilliation were offered only once in my lifetime, I would probably want it to be as close to my death as possible, for fear that I would sin again and have no opportunity to reconcile. :bigyikes: But the severe penances certainly could have been a factor in the procrastination.

I found this text which is from the Council of Trent. I only had a moment to skim over it but it really sheds some light on the Sacrament for me.

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

Are you saying that for the most serious of sins (murder, adultery, rape etc.) that exclusion from the Eucharist was the explicitly prescribed penance and further that it was explicitly taught by the Church that receiving the Eucharist was somehow not “good for” someone who had commited a great sin even though they had received absolution? And now the Church teaches that it is “good for” them?

I think that absolution may have been withheld, as Prayer Warrior’s page affirms, or it may have only been given upon the willingness of the penitant to voluntarily withdraw from Communion for a prescribed amount of time.

And if the last, then obviously, to go and receive Communion in violation of this voluntarily received penance would be VERY damaging to the soul… And if the former, then also… iow, the absolution would not be given IF someone was not willing to receive the penance prescribed…

Is that the “Reversal?”

The reversal is that now, in the matter of serious [mortal] sins, absolution is the rule, followed by the immediate partaking of Communion, whereas before, the rule was the suspension of Communion for some period of time, with or without absolution being given…

I

f it is, then I missed the data that supported the initial conclusion that would require the “Reversal”.

It was on Prayer Warrior’s site above…

Communing unworthily is not the same thing as being worthy of Communion… Only ONE is worthy… And we are but members, one of another, in His body…

Arsenios

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

Prayer_Warrior:

I do not see it as punishment for the purpose of avoiding punishment in Purgatory. That would seem to be rather dishonorable, in my view.

I thought it was either-or - In that one either will suffer the temporal penalty for one’s sins in this life by repentance, or one will suffer them in purgatory, where it will be far worse… And that the [especially undeserved]suffering one does in this life has merits, just as Christ’s suffering had unlimited merits…

Did I misunderstand? IF one does not suffer [temporally] enough for ones sins here on earth, one then SHALL suffer temporally for them in Purgatory, until the satisfaction of God is attained… Am I getting this right? Do you not understand sin as an offense against God that requires suffering to satisfy God’s being offended?

The whole point of the Sacrament is to reconcile us to God. That should be every person’s goal (not just getting out of trouble, so to speak, but truly configuring ourselves to Christ).

Well, this indeed should be primary, yet it is the severity of the penance that has been reversed, because the penance used to be the withdrawal from Communion for long periods of time… Among others… And now, Communion is given immediately upon confession if adequate remorse is shown, on the theory that the Communion will assist the person in resisting the impulse to sin again… Yet in the ancient Church, it was the withdrawal from Communion that was seen as assisting the person in resisting future commission of sins…

I would view penance as multi- dimensional in purpose. It is our opportunity to show our love for God, true sorrow for our sins and to atone for our sins. Penance gives God the opportunity to pour His graces into our soul which sanctifies or purifies us. IF we are not fully purified prior to our death, we will be purified in purgatory (Catholics believe) prior to entrance into heaven. That is what I meant by purging temporal punishment. I certainly did not want to imply that we look on penance as a punishment to avoid a larger punishment by God. To the contrary, acts of penance should be voluntary and enthusiastically performed to show our love for God

.

No argument here, except for the last, where the penance is to be undertaken not only to “show” our love for God, in the face of our having shown our contempt for Him by sinning, but for the healing of the soul of the penitent… Penance is a medicine, and all I can see so far is you saying that we will suffer for our temporal sins to a certain degree, whether here of hereafter, which does not explain the therapy…

f you are correct, then I would weep with you. However, the article says that “This early rite of reconciliation, however, could be received only once in a lifetime and involved a process that could take years. Severe penances were also given. As a result, Christians generally postponed reception of the sacrament until they were on their deathbeds.” If Reconcilliation were offered only once in my lifetime, I would probably want it to be as close to my death as possible, for fear that I would sin again and have no opportunity to reconcile. :bigyikes:

Me too… I seriously question the understanding given, however… I think it means that SERIOUS sins were only given one opportunity of reconciliation… You do not get to murder, reconcile, and murder again… You do not get to fall into heresy, reconcile, and fall into heresy again… IF you fall into a mortal sin, you get one chance of reconciliation, and then you are to stay reconciled…

But the severe penances certainly could have been a factor in the procrastination.

I misread it, and yes, that is a possibility, but not the essential gist of the paragraph! mea culpa…

I found this text

which is from the Council of Trent. I only had a moment to skim over it but it really sheds some light on the Sacrament for me.

I really dislike anathema statements, as a general rule… They are hard to read… The issue of healing, however, in Canon 9, is ruled OUT, it would seem, for it states: “If anyone says that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act… let him be anathema.” I agree that it IS a judicial act, you see… And THAT is why the penance is needed as the medicinal part of a repentant life… And the early Church regarded the withdrawal from Communion as beneficial to the soul, and now, the modern Church, has reversed that and regards the immediate re-entry into Communion without a pause at all as beneficial…

Arsenios

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

For which serious sin? Was there a table the priest used? “ Let’s see now, three murders at 2 years each, plus one adultery at 3 years, you owe us 9 years”. Were all serious sins treated by all priests dealt with in the same fashion? Padre Pio who lived recently, certainly not the ancient Church was known to refuse absolution to those who were not serious, seems like a possible lifetime. Curious. You say the these terms (years) were common? where did you find this, I’d like to research it.

For the MOST serious sin - This was the one whose penance was imposed, where several lesser sins had also been committed… The terms were common in the early Church - St. Basil had the original and most lengthy impositions, and these were reduced by John the Faster, who brought the cure of the shorter sentences by the praxis of xerophogy, and one meal only after the 9th hour, plus a number of prostrations every day - Normally 250, but varying according to the offense…

St. Basil was earlier, and the mere suspension from Communion was itself an adequate cure, but later, God gave, through John the Faster, shorter, if more intense, cures… To wit:

---

St. John the Faster’s CANON XVIII

It has seemed advisable to exclude any man who has been so mad as to copulate with another man from Communion for three years, weeping and fasting, and towards evening confined to xerophagy, and doing two hundred metanies. But as for one who prefers to relax, let him fulfill the fifteen years.

---

So you can see that Basil’s Canon called for 15 years of being witheld from Communion, but John the Faster’s only three years, but that only IF the weeping, fasting and prostrations [metanies] are fulfilled - eg only IF the penitent willingly and actually takes up the stringencies of an ascetic life…

Arsenios

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Reader Arsenios;

I thought it was either-or - In that one either will suffer the temporal penalty for one’s sins in this life by repentance, or one will suffer them in purgatory, where it will be far worse… And that the [especially undeserved]suffering one does in this life has merits, just as Christ’s suffering had unlimited merits…

Did I misunderstand? IF one does not suffer [temporally] enough for ones sins here on earth, one then SHALL suffer temporally for them in Purgatory, until the satisfaction of God is attained… Am I getting this right? Do you not understand sin as an offense against God that requires suffering to satisfy God’s being offended?

Apparently I am unable to make my meaning clear for which I apologize. Yes, you misunderstand what I was getting at. My statement was “I do not see it as punishment for the purpose of avoiding punishment in Purgatory. That would seem to be rather dishonorable, in my view.” I was speaking about the motivation of the penitent being in the right place. I do not believe we should perform an act of penance just to ‘get out of trouble’, to do so, in my view, would be dishonorable. The act of Penance should come from the heart–out of love for God and yes, your right, out of contempt for our sins.

Penance is a medicine, and all I can see so far is you saying that we will suffer for our temporal sins to a certain degree, whether here of hereafter, which does not explain the therapy…

Perhaps you missed my statement, “Penance gives God the opportunity to pour His graces into our soul which sanctifies or purifies us.” To me, this is the therapy of which you speak. Perhaps this is where we differ? I believe that it is God’s Grace poured upon us that is the “medicine” for our soul; it is God’s grace that heals the soul. Our penance opens us up to receive that Grace. I couldn’t agree with you more on the theraputic affect of penance–I try to go to frequent confession, do extra penance, and observe the penitential abstinence of meat on Fridays.

I’ll have to think more on the issue of witholding communion. It is plain the Church has changed the order in which we participate in the Sacrament from how it was received in the early Church. What I am not convinced of yet is that a person who has not done their acts of penance is in a state of unworthiness to receive. It would seem to me that true internal contrition would be enough to receive absolution and I think it is the grace received when we are absolved that makes us worthy to receive. However, I think it is certainly better to perform our penance (and more serious penance for more serious sins) before receiving. I just won’t go so far as saying a person who has been absolved but has not yet performed their penance is receiving unworthily.