Confession Question

[FrDavid96]

I think I may have been a little more obtuse that I wanted. I understand that the Bible is not our only source of spiritual truth. I am not a believer in sola scriptura. What I have a problem with is the idea that a teaching, especially one as important as this, can be considered part of the teachings which Jesus passed on to the apostles and they, in turn, passed on to us (my definition of Sacred Tradition). Thomas Aquinas wasn’t born until 1225. If he is the first person to mention absolution as something separate from forgiveness, in other words, without the ECFs weighing in on it, how do we know it’s not just an idea that Aquinas came up with. He’s not infallible; he denied the Immaculate Conception, after all.

I thought - and, perhaps, I’m wrong - that the pope cannot just make any statement about faith or morals and declare it to be infallible. It had to have some foundation in the historic teaching of the church. That’s why I was asking about the ECFs. This isn’t a minor point. I have to think that someone would have mentioned it before the 13th century if it was solid church teaching.

I hope I’ve clarified my thoughts a little better.

I think I see what you mean.

Let me put it this way. The words that we use now in our vocabulary–words that go back at least to St Thomas (yes, he used Latin, we use English), are merely an expression of a reality. What I mean by that is to make the point that vocabulary as such is not what’s central; instead the spiritual concepts are important.

Let’s look again at our modern definitions (in brief, very brief):
Forgiveness—reconciled to God
Absolution–reconciled to the Church

Now, even if we do not have evidence from the early Church Fathers that they had a distinct vocabulary, we have plenty of evidence that they understood (and certainly affirmed) that both concepts existed. To the Fathers, a penitent had to be reconciled to both God and the Church.

We can find plenty of examples of this.

Here is just one example to illustrate the point:
St. 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. 106]).
wenorthodox.com/2012/12/the-bible-and-early-church-fathers-on-confession-of-sin/

It’s very clear that in the mind of St Ignatius, a penitent needed to be reconciled to both God and the Church.

The Saint says “return to the unity of the Church” (or at least that’s how the translator renders it). Although he does not use the word “absolve” as such, he certainly intends the meaning of the word.

I do understand your point, that St Thomas came along after 1200 years of Christianity; however when we look at the history of confession in the early Church, and the writings of the Church Fathers, it’s quite obvious that they understood the fact that a penitent needed to be reconciled to both God and the Church. Even though they might not have used 2 different words, there’s no doubt that the concept was there.

Look to the early Church canons (especially the Councils) who put so much effort into describing the “stages” of reconciliation----the categories of the “hearers” and “kneelers” and “standers” and it becomes quite clear that they saw a need for the penitent to be brought back into the community of the Church.

Remember: St Thomas is not inventing the categories, he’s merely articulating them.

As for your last paragraph: I agree 100%.

 

[PJM]

=garysibio;11684877]A while back I started a thread with the hypothetical question: What if you made a sincere confession but the priest recognized your voice, was angry with you about something and refused to say the absolution? Would you still be forgiven?

It was completely hypothetical. It has never happened to me or to anyone I know. The answer was almost if not completely unanimous: You are not forgiven.

Today I was listening to a talk by some Evangelicals. They were discussing forgiveness of sins and mentioned the Catholic view of confession which, of course, they disagreed with. As is often the case with non-Catholics, they got the facts wrong and said that, even if you were not truly repentant, once the priest said the absolution your sin was forgiven.

CCC 1491 The sacrament of Penance is a whole consisting in three actions of the penitent and the priest’s absolution. The penitent’s acts are repentance, confession or disclosure of sins to the priest, and the intention to make reparation and do works of reparation.

However this made me think of the previous thread. If the priest’s absolution of an unrepentant sinner does not result in forgiveness, why should the repentant confession of a sinner who, through no reason of his own is being denied absolution, not be forgiven?

I know the teaching of the church says this is the case but where is the justice in this? It seems inconsistent. Thoughts?

Your question MY friend does not merit serious consideration because Sacramental Confession is not about what the priest likes or dislikes. It is about a GOOD confession; Sincere repentance and the Priest doing what God empowers him to do.

A priest might justly show some irritation if one is continuing to sin repeatedly the SAME WAY and making NO effort to to stop. [They are human]. But it is NEVER personal.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[catholicalso]

Today I was listening to a talk by some Evangelicals.

They were discussing forgiveness of sins and mentioned the Catholic view of confession which, of course, they disagreed with.

As is often the case with non-Catholics, they got the facts wrong and said that
even if you were not truly repentant,

once the priest said the absolution your sin was forgiven.

Your question MY friend does not merit serious consideration because Sacramental Confession is not about what the priest likes or dislikes. It is about a GOOD confession; Sincere repentance and the Priest doing what God empowers him to do.

A priest might justly show some irritation if one is continuing to sin repeatedly the SAME WAY and making NO effort to to stop. [They are human]. But it is NEVER personal.

yes the priest is a “minor player” in this process-- this is why non catholics use 1 john 1;9

1 john 1:9 - If we confess our sins, he is faithful - Bible Gateway

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

as there was no priest hood in the 1st century church-- that used this model for the activation of forgiveness – the non catholics follow this method- of personal repentence

 

[PJM]

=FrDavid96;11699540]Let’s look at St. Thomas again.

What I’ll do is to:

Put all the words about forgiveness in green

Put all the words about absolution in blue

To put emphasis on the notion of “both” that will be in purple

God alone absolves from sin and forgives sins authoritatively; yet priests do both ministerially, because the words of the priest in this sacrament work as instruments of the Divine power, as in the other sacraments: because it is the Divine power that works inwardly in all the sacramental signs, be they things or words, as shown above (62, 4; 64, 1,2). Wherefore our Lord expressed both: for He said to Peter (Matthew 16:19): “Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,” etc., and to His disciples (John 20:23): “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.” Yet the priest says: “I absolve thee,” rather than: “I forgive thee thy sins,” because it is more in keeping with the words of our Lord, by expressing the power of the keys whereby priests absolve. Nevertheless, since the priest absolves* ministerially, something is suitably added in reference to the supreme authority of God, by the priest saying: “I absolve thee* in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” or by the power of Christ’s Passion, or by the authority of God. However, as this is not defined by the words of Christ, as it is for Baptism, this addition is left to the discretion of the priest.

• Those instances of the word “absolve” refer to “reconciliation” which includes both forgiveness and absolution—hence, I put them in purple.

Thank you father for the clear and lucid explaination:thumbsup:

God’s continued Blessings!