Confused — Some Questions

[seeker_of_God]

Hello,

I was on this forum a few years ago, when I was in the process of becoming Catholic.

I did indeed become Catholic, and was confirmed. But shortly afterwards, I fell away, into the New Age and occult.

I’ve since realized the error and deception in the New Age, and have recently become Christian again. However, I have some issues with the Catholic Church.

The problem is that I’ve been feeling a nagging. It has started pretty subtly, but it’s just been bothering me. It’s a pulling to be open to the Church. I do not know why, and there are many things I have issues with, but I cannot seem to get rid of it.

So I want to bring up some of my issues, and get your responses. In doing so, I want to stress that I mean no disrespect in anything I say, and I want to keep this thread completely, 100% civil.

Firstly, I heard from a Catholic today that St. Ignatius wrote an epistle between the years 105-115 A.D. I heard that he was a direct student of St. Peter, so obviously he received his knowledge more or less directly from the source. And I heard that in that epistle, he had written to the Church about the importance about continuing the faith in the Eucharist as the real body and blood.

I currently do not believe in the Eucharist as the literal body and blood, but this point bothers me. This was only about 20 years after the book of Revelation was written. It’s really not that far removed.

So is this true? Are there sources I can check out?

But there are many things that bother me otherwise.

Romans 10:9 says:

Romans 10:9

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (ESV)

And Ephesians 2:8-9 says:

Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (ESV)

Yet I know that in the Church, there is an emphasis on confession to a priest, that if we sin, it is not automatically covered by our saving faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior, but that we must verbally confess it to a priest in order to be cleansed of that sin. But this seems to contradict these passages. Can you please explain this?

Also, it seems to say that all we need to be saved is to confess that Jesus is Lord. But the Church seems to add many requirements onto it. YOu must be baptized, must receive communion, must attend Mass weekly, etc. How do these align?

I also have difficulty with the belief in purgatory. When I believed in it, it always depressed me, because after I die, I do not want to spend yet more time in a place of suffering, but I want to be immediately with Jesus. I’ve heard horrors about the pain of purgatory, and that doesn’t seem to align with our assurance in Scripture, that if we believe, we will be in Heaven with the Lord. So this also really bothers me.

I actually think that’s it, but I will reply more if I have further questions. Your help is much appreciated.

Thanks and God bless,
Brandon

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi Seeker,
That would be St. John the Evangelist, not St.Peter, but yeah, he did. See The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans.

As for the Real Presence in the Eucharist, try this from my blog. The Eucharist IS Scriptural

PM me if you need anything. Glad to help.

 

[seeker_of_God]

Hi Seeker,
That would be St. John the Evangelist, not St.Peter, but yeah, he did. See The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans.

As for the Real Presence in the Eucharist, try this from my blog. The Eucharist IS Scriptural

PM me if you need anything. Glad to help.

Thanks so much. I will check out those resources. Anything on the other issues?

I appreciate the help.

 

[RBoquist]

On your question concerning confession, the church does not require that you confess every sin you commit. The only required ones are mortal sins, this practice is based on John 20:23 (D-R)
“Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”
This is how Christ intended it to be.

The verse concerning forgiveness through baptism is also church teaching as faith in Christ leads one to baptism which Removes the stains of Original sin.
Romans 6:3–5 (D-R)
“3 Know you not that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death?
4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.”

Peace of Christ be with you always!

 

[DavidFilmer]

Your question covers many topics. The reality of Eucharist is covered in the Sixth Chapter of the Gospel of St. John. The question about the power to forgive sins vested in men is described in John 20:23. But this particular part of your question is what interests me:

Also, it seems to say that all we need to be saved is to confess that Jesus is Lord.

But Jesus clearly teaches:

Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord [ie, acknowledges (confesses) that Jesus is Lord], **shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father who is in heaven. **[Matt 7:21]

Confess that Jesus is Lord all you want. Demons do the same. If that is the only thing that you (and the demons) do, would you really expect that you will join the demons in heaven?

 

[seeker_of_God]

On your question concerning confession, the church does not require that you confess every sin you commit. The only required ones are mortal sins, this practice is based on John 20:23 (D-R)
“Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”
This is how Christ intended it to be.

The verse concerning forgiveness through baptism is also church teaching as faith in Christ leads one to baptism which Removes the stains of Original sin.
Romans 6:3–5 (D-R)
“3 Know you not that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death?
4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.”

Peace of Christ be with you always!

Thanks, that helps.

I had a thought about Romans 10:9 as I cited.

It seems that to “confess” and to “believe” could be an ongoing process. We “confess” that Jesus is Lord by continuously carrying out the process of salvation in our lives, by continuously submitting to Jesus as Lord in the way that we live, etc. It is an angle I did not consider.

Here’s another issue I have, though.

My wife and I were pretty involved in the charismatic movement. I know there is a charismatic movement in the Catholic Church itself, but it is not very widespread. But the churches where I see an emphasis on the HOly Spirit, they are more charismatic.

So it comes across as though the Church is not very filled with the Holy Spirit. I do not see the gifts emphasized, such as tongues, prophecy, and so forth, which I definitely believe in and have experienced.

What do you think?

 

[seeker_of_God]

Your question covers many topics. The reality of Eucharist is covered in the Sixth Chapter of the Gospel of St. John. The question about the power to forgive sins vested in men is described in John 20:23. But this particular part of your question is what interests me:

But Jesus clearly teaches:

Confess that Jesus is Lord all you want. Demons do the same. If that is the only thing that you (and the demons) do, would you really expect that you will join the demons in heaven?

Very good points. I am ashamed to admit that it is not something I thought of, though I’ve seen that verse many times. Thank you.

 

[seeker_of_God]

I don’t mean to reply yet again, but one more thing.

One of my concerns is that I really feel called to a ministry of some kind. I have a deep desire to dedicate my life entirely to God. Before I got married, I discerned becoming a priest, but I was called to married life. If I were to remain Protestant, I was considering becoming a pastor.

But if God calls me back into the Catholic Church, I"m not really sure what I’d do. I don’t know how many opportunities there are for the laity. I’m not yet old enough to become a deacon.

One thing I really want to do is to reach out to those who are in the occult, or who might be tempted into the occult. It’s such an insidious thing, and I feel strongly about the importance of staying far away from it.

But I"m just not sure what I could possibly be called to do if this happened in this way. I know this is a bit of another topic, but I"m just covering everything at once.

 

[Gorgias]

I currently do not believe in the Eucharist as the literal body and blood, but this point bothers me. This was only about 20 years after the book of Revelation was written. It’s really not that far removed.

So is this true? Are there sources I can check out?

Brandon,

I’m writing this post without having gone back to double check all my sources and from them, to provide you with citations. (It’s late, and yeah, I’m being a little lazy.) Let me say this one thing: yes, this is the belief of the Church since the very beginning. Ignatius of Antioch was a bishop of the 1st century A.D.; and, after his arrest by the Romans, he was transported to Rome for execution. Along the way, he had the opportunity to meet with a number of the faithful and to write a number of epistles; you can find these at the New Advent site, under the heading of ‘Ignatius of Antioch’ (at this link).

But there are many things that bother me otherwise.

Romans 10:9 says:

if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Look at this in its proper context – that is, in the context that Paul provides! Here, he’s talking about the difference between Jews and Christians. Christians believe in justification and salvation by faith; Jews believe in that their salvation is through works (of the law) – that is, if they do certain things of their own volition, they will be saved. Christian theology has always said that our salvation comes from Jesus, not from our own actions. Even when we do ‘things’ – things that have value – our salvation comes not from our own efforts, but from Jesus. So, in this passage, Paul is affirming that we don’t earn salvation, but rather, are granted it from Jesus, through faith. This doesn’t conflict with Catholic teaching; and those who teach that it does conflict either don’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches or are misrepresenting Catholic teachings.

And Ephesians 2:8-9 says:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

This, too, stands in agreement with Catholic teaching: our salvation is not through our own personal merit, but by the free gift of God’s grace to us.

 

[Gorgias]

Yet I know that in the Church, there is an emphasis on confession to a priest, that if we sin, it is not automatically covered by our saving faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior, but that we must verbally confess it to a priest in order to be cleansed of that sin. But this seems to contradict these passages. Can you please explain this?

Certainly.

Your question seems to be asking why “once saved, always saved” isn’t the proper result of a person’s declaration of faith. (It might be reasonable to ask whether a ‘declaration of faith’ isn’t itself a work, such that those who claim ‘faith alone’ aren’t really claiming that a personal ‘work’ is what saves…? but I’ll leave that discussion aside for the moment…!)

Let’s take a look at Scripture, to see what it tells us about declarations of faith and the effects of works, ok? in Acts 4 and 5, we see two types of ‘works’. The “community of believers was of one heart and mind” (Acts 4:32) – that is, all had believed in Jesus and expressed their faith and ‘were saved’. Because of this common faith, people performed good works (for example, a certain man named Joseph sold a piece of property and gave it to the Church (cf Acts 4:37)). Note that these acts don’t prove the sincerity of the person’s conversion; instead, all that the acts do is to demonstrate that there was no one who was needy in the community, since the faithful were generous. However, in Acts 5, we see a different dynamic. A married couple (Ananias and Sapphira) also sold a piece of property. However, instead of giving the proceeds all to the community, they were greedy, and held a part of it back for themselves (Acts 5:2). Peter, knowing that this is the case, challenges the couple: he asks Ananias why he has “lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land” (Acts 5:3). Now, here’s the important part, with respect to your question: in what way did Ananias ‘lie to the Holy Spirit’? After all, if the lie was in the declaration of faith, then there’s no problem – Ananias’ conversion was never ‘real’, so his subsequent punishment wasn’t a negation of ‘once saved, always saved’. But – and this is critical – if Ananias’ conversion was valid, then his subsequent sin condemned him, and therefore, ‘once saved, always saved’ is disproven through Scripture. So, how can we understand what the truth is?

In order to find an answer, it’s helpful to look at the original Greek of the Scripture. The question we’re trying to answer is “was Ananias’ lie in his declaration of faith or in his action (of failing to give the proceeds of his property sale to the Church)?”. The two words in play here are “lie” and “holding back”; here, both are in the aorist tense and are in the middle voice. Aorist acts as a general indicator of past events. The middle tense is difficult to describe in English, but it indicates doing something for one’s own benefit. So, there’s a certain correspondence here, by virtue of the way the Scriptures express the event: both the lie and the holding back of the cash were past events, and both were meant to benefit Ananias; and Peter is scolding Ananias for both of these actions.

If “once saved, always saved” is the order of the day, though, then Peter needs to be referring explicitly to Ananias’ conversion and expression of faith. But, this is problematic – why is it a bad thing to express one’s faith, if that expression of faith ultimately (consciously) benefits a person? Are we saying that an expression of faith has to happen in a void? That is, if we express our faith, knowing that it will save us, then we’re sinful and deceitful in doing so? By no means! There’s nothing in Scripture that suggests this idea! Moreover, in describing the “holding back”, Scripture identifies what the “holding back” refers to: “holding back the price of the land” (Acts 5:3). So, on both grammatical and Scriptural grounds, we’re led to only one conclusion: Ananias’ sin isn’t centered on his confession of faith, but on his act of holding back some of the proceeds of the sale of his property.

Now, if ‘once saved, always saved’ was true, then we’d say (as you stated) that Ananias’ sin should have been “automatically covered by our saving faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior”, right? Yet, it wasn’t! Having been confronted by Peter, and having neither defended himself nor asked for forgiveness, Ananias was struck dead! Surely, this demonstrates that his sins weren’t “automatically covered”, doesn’t it?

So, (in a long-winded way), I think I’ve demonstrated that acts subsequent to one’s profession of faith aren’t “covered” in the way that some may have asserted to you that they are. The Catholic notion of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, then, isn’t at odds with Scriptural notions about justification and salvation. We can talk about what Reconciliation actually is, and where it appears in Scripture, but I’m thinking that I’ve addressed your concerns about Catholic teaching ‘conflicting’ with Scripture. Is there anything else (on this topic) that you wanted to ask about?

 

[mab23]

I don’t mean to reply yet again, but one more thing.

One of my concerns is that I really feel called to a ministry of some kind. I have a deep desire to dedicate my life entirely to God. Before I got married, I discerned becoming a priest, but I was called to married life. If I were to remain Protestant, I was considering becoming a pastor.

But if God calls me back into the Catholic Church, I"m not really sure what I’d do. I don’t know how many opportunities there are for the laity. I’m not yet old enough to become a deacon.

One thing I really want to do is to reach out to those who are in the occult, or who might be tempted into the occult. It’s such an insidious thing, and I feel strongly about the importance of staying far away from it.

But I"m just not sure what I could possibly be called to do if this happened in this way. I know this is a bit of another topic, but I"m just covering everything at once.

you could become a Deacon, knight of Columbus

Also I recommend this book - The Fathers Know best by Jimmy Akin

it has every Catholic Doctrine backed the the early church fathers in the first few centuries , its overwhelming how Catholic they were.

my prayers go out to you!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ix1qjYRyL.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01.jpg

amazon.com/Fathers-Know-Best-Jimmy-Akin/dp/1933919345

 

[Gorgias]

Whew…! OK – continuing to work through your list of questions…

Also, it seems to say that all we need to be saved is to confess that Jesus is Lord. But the Church seems to add many requirements onto it. YOu must be baptized, must receive communion, must attend Mass weekly, etc. How do these align?

Looking back on the discussion of the context of Romans, I think it’s clear that Paul isn’t saying that a confession is the only necessary thing: rather, what Paul is pointing out is that the difference between Jews and Christians is that the Christian hope of salvation is based on faith, whereas the Jewish hope of salvation is based on works of the law. In this context, we see that he’s not providing an absolute description, but rather, pointing out the fundamental difference in the two systems of belief. Therefore, the Catholic Church isn’t “adding requirements” to Paul’s assertion, but rather, rounding out the discussion that Paul has sketched here. After all, Jesus himself told the apostles about the need for baptism, and Paul isn’t saying “OK… yinz need to make a confession and then be baptized”! So, Paul’s statements here aren’t the end-all and be-all, but rather, are simply a description of the important difference between Judaism and Christianity.

I also have difficulty with the belief in purgatory. When I believed in it, it always depressed me, because after I die, I do not want to spend yet more time in a place of suffering, but I want to be immediately with Jesus.

Well, first off, everyone who goes through purgation is guaranteed to ‘be in Heaven with the Lord’. It’s not like purgation is ‘mini-Hell’; rather, it’s a necessary step of cleansing before being worthy to be in the presence of God. After all, it’s impossible to be in God’s presence and not be perfect, right? (There are lots of Scriptural citations to back this up.) But, if you died right now, are you saying that you’re perfect right now? If not, then something has to happen to you between the dying-and-saved-but-not-perfect and the standing-in-the-presence-of-God-and-being-perfect in heaven, right? That ‘something’… is purgation; that’s all that the Catholic belief in purgatory is telling us. We’re not perfect now; we’ll be perfect in heaven; purgation purifies us so that we might stand before God.

I’ve heard horrors about the pain of purgatory, and that doesn’t seem to align with our assurance in Scripture, that if we believe, we will be in Heaven with the Lord. So this also really bothers me.

Well, what will that purification feel like? Will it be pleasant, or uncomfortable, or painful? It’s difficult to reach a definitive answer. However, theologians have speculated that the act of purification won’t be a walk in the park: however, even if purification isn’t pleasant, it in no way contradicts the assurance of being in Heaven with the Lord. 100% of the people who experience purification (/purgatory) will be in Heaven. So, this shouldn’t be a source of great anxiety, it seems…

Hope this helps!

Blessings,

G.

 

[Rolltide]

Go to this thread, posts 8-15:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=425641&highlight=Debating+the+real+presence+w/+a+Protestant

I posted a LONG response a while back with all of the quotes from the Early Church Fathers on the evidence for the Real Presence. Everything you need should be there for evidence for that doctrine.

 

[seeker_of_God]

Gorgias, thank you for your detailed response to my questions, especially on confession. It places it in a very different light, and I see what you are saying in your proof. I appreciate your assistance with this issue.

 

[seeker_of_God]

you could become a Deacon, knight of Columbus

Also I recommend this book - The Fathers Know best by Jimmy Akin

it has every Catholic Doctrine backed the the early church fathers in the first few centuries , its overwhelming how Catholic they were.

my prayers go out to you!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ix1qjYRyL.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01.jpg

amazon.com/Fathers-Know-Best-Jimmy-Akin/dp/1933919345

Thank you for your prayers. They are much needed and appreciated. And also thanks for the book recommendation.

 

[LegoGE1947]

On your question concerning confession, the church does not require that you confess every sin you commit. The only required ones are mortal sins, this practice is based on John 20:23 (D-R)
“Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”
This is how Christ intended it to be.

The verse concerning forgiveness through baptism is also church teaching as faith in Christ leads one to baptism which Removes the stains of Original sin.
Romans 6:3–5 (D-R)
“3 Know you not that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death?
4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.”

Peace of Christ be with you always!

Even though the church does not require you to confess every sin you commit it is a good practice to confess some of the venial sins since they can become mortal sins if engaged in long enough. (At least this is the way confession has come across to me. I hope this isn’t confusing!)

 

[Lost_and_Found_1]

For those Jewish hearer’s to listen to those words in John 6:51-58, they would certainly require some sort of offense being taken, that is a shocking statement. So the Jews disputed among themselves saying, how can this man give us his flesh to eat? That’s barbaric, that’s contrary to the law. So what does Jesus say to them, truly, truly, I say to you, this is only a figure of speech? I only meant it metaphorically. Now that would have been a very simple thing for him to do as a teacher, if he says the bread which I give to the world is my flesh, if all he meant was figurative, it would have been simple to say so, and it would have been morally incumbent, it would have been an obligation for him to clarify the point. But what does he do? Instead, he reiterates that offensive assertion not once, not twice but four times he says to them, truly, truly I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you. And in the next verse he says, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. And a third time in the next verse, for my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. And finally, number four, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. Now four times he says, eat my flesh and drink my blood. How many times have you heard preachers say you must be born again? But those same preachers never say you must eat his flesh and drink his blood. They say you must take it literally here when it’s only said once but what happens when they hear it four times? They ignore it or try to make it have a figurative meaning when it doesn’t seem possible under closer scrutiny. That’s why in verse 60 we read many of the disciples saying, this is a hard saying, who can listen to it? They’re not saying, who can understand it, they’re saying who can even bear hearing it? But Jesus knowing his disciples murmured at it, said to them, do you take offense to this? Of course he knows they do. And knowing that, once again he could have explained it was symbolic, but he goes on to talk about the son of man ascending where he was before and the Holy Spirit giving life. Ultimately, it’s only when Jesus Christ ascends and gives us the Holy Spirit that this flesh and blood will be made available to us in a transforming manner. Not surprisingly we read in 66, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus turns to the twelve and says do you also want to turn away? Jesus will not compromise any truth, especially the truth of the gift of the Holy Eucharist. Peter answered, Lord to whom shall we go?

In Chapter 6:4 we read that it was the time of the Passover that Jesus was giving this bread of life discourse. Now here he is discussing how he’s the living bread, how he’s the true manna that comes down from heaven. He is linking himself in the most essential way to the Passover. Back in Chapter 1 John the Baptist says twice behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. So one of John’s principle emphasis is Jesus is the Lamb, the Passover sacrifice. Back in the OT, back in Egypt when Israel was in bondage and the tenth plague was about to descend, the law was clear. God stipulated through Moses, you’re going to have to take an unblemished male lamb, slaughter him, sprinkle his blood on your doorpost, roast that lamb and eat that lamb. Now suppose a family did all that but didn’t eat the lamb, what would have happened to that family? They would have woken up the next day and found their first born son dead. It wasn’t enough to kill the lamb they had to eat the sacrificial lamb. And if Jesus Christ is coming to perfect the OT types which he does, then he really is the Passover lamb. He is slain, his blood is sprinkled but if he is the sacrificial lamb of the new covenant Passover, it isn’t enough for the lamb to die, it isn’t enough for his blood to be shed, we have to eat the lamb. We have to consume sacrifice for communion to be reached.

Scott Hahn

 

[JRKH]

Hello Seeker,
I have not read through the various responses because I did not wish to lose the train of thought that came to me as I read your post below. If I repeat things…well that will just reinforce what others have said. If anything is new - I hope it will be helpful.

Hello,

I was on this forum a few years ago, when I was in the process of becoming Catholic.

I did indeed become Catholic, and was confirmed. But shortly afterwards, I fell away, into the New Age and occult.

I’ve since realized the error and deception in the New Age, and have recently become Christian again. However, I have some issues with the Catholic Church.

Sorry to hear that you got sidetracked into this error…But in truth sometimes such errors can be helpful - after all - the prodigal son did not truly appreciate what he had until he lost it… Trust in God to bring good from it.
So - welcome back and let’s see if we can bring you all the way home

The problem is that I’ve been feeling a nagging. It has started pretty subtly, but it’s just been bothering me. It’s a pulling to be open to the Church. I do not know why, and there are many things I have issues with, but I cannot seem to get rid of it.

I will wager that what is calling you is the Eucharist. Pure and simple. I know that you express issues about this below…but be open to it. It is the Mass and the Real presence that is not leaving you alone…

So I want to bring up some of my issues, and get your responses. In doing so, I want to stress that I mean no disrespect in anything I say, and I want to keep this thread completely, 100% civil.

Firstly, I heard from a Catholic today that St. Ignatius wrote an epistle between the years 105-115 A.D. I heard that he was a direct student of St. Peter, so obviously he received his knowledge more or less directly from the source. And I heard that in that epistle, he had written to the Church about the importance about continuing the faith in the Eucharist as the real body and blood.

I currently do not believe in the Eucharist as the literal body and blood, but this point bothers me. This was only about 20 years after the book of Revelation was written. It’s really not that far removed.

So is this true? Are there sources I can check out?

obviously this has already been addressed so I will leave it for the time being.

But there are many things that bother me otherwise.

Romans 10:9 says:

And Ephesians 2:8-9 says:

Yet I know that in the Church, there is an emphasis on confession to a priest, that if we sin, it is not automatically covered by our saving faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior, but that we must verbally confess it to a priest in order to be cleansed of that sin. But this seems to contradict these passages. Can you please explain this?

Also, it seems to say that all we need to be saved is to confess that Jesus is Lord. But the Church seems to add many requirements onto it. You must be baptized, must receive communion, must attend Mass weekly, etc. How do these align?

Yes the above passages bring one to salvation. But is salvation a “one time thing” or is salvation an ongoing process? This is the key to understanding. Salvation is a journey of transformation - of sanctification - of spiritual growth.
Confession is an important part of the ongoing process of salvation that too many people just do not understand and appreciate.
Jesus tells the Apostles that “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” - (John 20:23)
So ask yourself - How is this accomplished if the penitent does not “verbally confess” these sins to one who has this Christ granted authority?
But even more importantly - the sacrament of reconciliation is one of both confession and counsel. It is a place to discuss and receive advice. A regular confessor is also a spiritual director who comes to know you and your struggles - and just as a psychiatrist meets with his patients in private and under a vow of secrecy…do does God’s representative meet with us privately and with the absolute promise of secrecy.

An understanding of the term baptism is a help in this too. The Greek term for baptism can mean to wash, to dip, and/or to soak. I read of a Greek text abut making pickles in which the various forms of baptism were used. The first meaning to dip and to wash, but the second form meaning to immerse and soak in brine…the pickling juice. The first step, washing, makes the cucumber clean…but it remains unchanged. The second step - the immersion in brine gradually over time gradually changes the cucumber into a pickle.
So it is that we must remain “immersed” in the Spirit…allowing and inviting and seeking the Spirit to seep more deeply and fully into us. Changing us from our old selves into the new self reflecting Christ. For the Cucumber - it’s called “Pickling” - for the Christian - it is called Sanctification.

Confession is an important aspect of this sanctification. Consider how you might have not been sidetracked by the “New Age” error if you had brought the temptations to confession early on.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

I also have difficulty with the belief in purgatory. When I believed in it, it always depressed me, because after I die, I do not want to spend yet more time in a place of suffering, but I want to be immediately with Jesus. I’ve heard horrors about the pain of purgatory, and that doesn’t seem to align with our assurance in Scripture, that if we believe, we will be in Heaven with the Lord. So this also really bothers me.

Purgatory should not be a depressing idea but rather a hopeful one.
Do you realize that we are called to perfection? (Mt 5:48) Yet we know that, even though we try very hard, it is unlikely that we will be perfected at the point of death. The process of purgation (done in purgatory) completes that process.
The more we do here, the less needs done there. The idea of “suffering” there should not depress, but should “spur” us to greater effort here so as to move more swiftly through the process of purgation and on to the heavenly vision.

I actually think that’s it, but I will reply more if I have further questions. Your help is much appreciated.

Thanks and God bless,
Brandon

You are very welcome Brandon. I hope that some of what I have shared above is useful to you.
As "Read Green says - “I’m pullin’ for ya. we’re all in this together”

http://www.well.com/user/sid/american/redgreen.jpg

Peace
James

 

[pablope]

Hello,

I was on this forum a few years ago, when I was in the process of becoming Catholic.