Confession & Penance

[RobBahoura]

Hi you can do both but you need first of all to realize that we go to the priest but we really confess to god through the priest. Look at these bible versus.

John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, “as the Father sent me, so I send you.” As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.

John 20:23 - Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.

Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to “men.” Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles’ successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?

2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as “in persona Christi”). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins.

Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.

                       The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins

James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 – these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.

1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But we must confess our sins to one another.

2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin).

 

[diggerdomer]

Just a further thought on this:

Frequent communions should be balanced with frequent confessions. That seems logical, since we are all sinners. Sin and breaking the Eucharistic fast are the two barriers to receiving Our Lord in Holy Communion. Since it’s almost impossible to break the lax one hour Eucharistic fast, people who stay in their seats are most likey presumed by others to either have a lack of piety or to be in a state of mortal sin. That can create social pressure to make a sacrilegious Communion.

Before the change from the three hour Eucharistic fast, one who did not receive most likely had not kept the Eucharistic fast, and those who did receive must have thoughtfully prepared themselves for it by remembering to go without food in preparation of receiving Our Lord.

The habit of routinely receiving Communion without frequent confessions is prevalent everywhere I have been, and I believe it can show more piety and respect for Our Lord to stay in your seat during Communion than it does to go up and automatically receive when you haven’t been to confession in a while.

Breaking the fast is not a barrier to receiving communion. Meaning, I don’t think the Church teaches that those who do not observe the fast are objectively denied admission to communion. Can you help by providing where the Church teaches such?

 

[diggerdomer]

In case it hasn’t been mentioned, traditionally, when going behind the screen, you are kneeling during the sacrament of penance/reconciliation, going to confession. Those who go face to face with the priest are sitting like him. The option of going face to face is one of the changes since Vatican II.

Not excatly, there’s non reference to screens in the first millenium of the Church, is there?

 

[preV2tradcath]

Not excatly, there’s non reference to screens in the first millenium of the Church, is there?

Probably not, but in more recent history what I said is true.

 

[Filioque]

In case it hasn’t been mentioned, traditionally, when going behind the screen, you are kneeling during the sacrament of penance/reconciliation, going to confession. Those who go face to face with the priest are sitting like him. The option of going face to face is one of the changes since Vatican II.

Well yes and no. I went to two SSPX Seminaries, while confessions were heard by any confessor in the “Box” in the chapel, more frequently when one had an appointment with one’s spiritual director, you would kneel next to the desk in his office, and confess with no screen. But the option was always your own. The Screen, and later the Confessional itself were matters of Canon Law that developed after the Protestant Reformation in order to reduce or eliminate the allegations that priests used the confessional to seduce women, as well as to encorage more frequent confession.

St. Padre Pio used to hear the confessions of all women in the confessional, behind a screen. Men’s confessions could be heard in the confessional, but he also heard men’s confessions in the sacristy without a screen, just a chair and kneeler.

Eastern Catholics have always held to the practice of confessing in an open church or chapel, the priest stands to the side of a kneeling penitent and covers him or her with his stole, a symbol of God’s grace coveing the sinner.

 

[diggerdomer]

Probably not, but in more recent history what I said is true.

Exactly. And just as a personal experiential note, in my Catholic upbringing (grade school, high school, and college) the screen has never been presented to me as preferable/required. Always an option.