Did the good thief actually confess? (like actually repent?)

[Lilsheep88]

The good thief never actually explicitly said I am sorry but he said “Jesus remember when you come into your kingdom”. Does this constitute as a confession?

Does that mean that even the slightest change of heart prior to death is a ticket into heaven? Or purgatory at the very least… What about nonCatholic Christians that truly repented before death but did not confess?? Or was it only an exception for the good thief? God must be very very merciful then. Sorry for asking too many questions… Just really lookinng more and more into the faith.

 

[Zeldarocks]

If I’m not mistaking, he underwent what is termed as a “Baptism of Desire,” that is, his own desire to be cleansed and to be with Jesus proved salvific in light of not being able to be formally baptized.

 

[LilyM]

He did say that he and his fellow thief deserved their punishment whereas Jesus did not. This IMHO is an admission of guilt, or confession. Then he asked Jesus to ‘remember me’, which was a plea for mercy.

 

[po18guy]

He did say that he and his fellow thief deserved their punishment whereas Jesus did not. This IMHO is an admission of guilt, or confession. Then he asked Jesus to ‘remember me’, which was a plea for mercy.

In addition to admonishing his partner for failing to fear God. His confession was inherent in his admission that they had committed crimes and that their punishment was just. But, as Fr. Mitch Pacwa points out, it was a dying common criminal, Dismas, who was the first to recognize and confess Jesus as King - and not as King of this world, but the next. The Jews accused our Lord of claiming to be a king. Pilate asked Him if He was a King. Dismas alone asked for mercy while giving Him His due as King, thus he received that mercy.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The entire episode with Dismas suggests to us that Jesus is merciful. But, in some way, we have to ASK for His mercy and forgiveness.

We need to thread between presumption and despair.

Avoid scrupulosity.

And also keep in mind that Jesus said that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will be saved.

So, for those of us who are not being executed right alongside Jesus, we need to take some precautions … say a daily Rosary, get to Mass every Sunday and daily Mass if possible, and make visits to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. Frequent confession. Holy Communion. Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy, etc.

 

[DaveBj]

Bear in mind that we don’t have a full transcript of the conversation between the thief and Jesus. We really don’t know what all he said.

 

[carn]

The good thief never actually explicitly said I am sorry but he said “Jesus remember when you come into your kingdom”. Does this constitute as a confession?

As mute people do not automatically suffer eternal damnation, there must be non-verbal ways to meet the requirements regarding confessing and or repenting. And therefore also a partly verbal confession could under the correct circumstances be sufficient.

The Church just cannot offer the exact details, when and how these circumstances arise, the Church can just define exact criteria for a valid verbal confession. Therefore the latter seems a lot safer and therefore preferable.

 

[promethius]

In addition to admonishing his partner for failing to fear God. His confession was inherent in his admission that they had committed crimes and that their punishment was just. But, as Fr. Mitch Pacwa points out, it was a dying common criminal, Dismas, who was the first to recognize and confess Jesus as King - and not as King of this world, but the next. The Jews accused our Lord of claiming to be a king. Pilate asked Him if He was a King. Dismas alone asked for mercy while giving Him His due as King, thus he received that mercy.

In addition to that, the “theif” knew Jesus well enough to recognize His face, WHILE dying on a cross, even after Jesus had been beaten.

I don’t buy that the good thief NECESSARILY underwent baptism of desire… or the protestant line that this was a total conversion on the cross… with that level of intimacy with a person, it is entirely possible that the person was a follower of Christ already, who was condemned under some roman law that was unjust (or under rabbinic law, which was never God’s law in the first place).

 

[Mintaka]

Luke says they were “kakourgos” – literally, “evil-doers.” Criminals. They did Really Bad Things.

Matthew and Mark call them “leistes” – literally, “booty-ers”. Brigands. Robbers and plunderers. This is the same word Luke uses for the highway bandit baddies who beat up the guy rescued by the Good Samaritan. It’s also the word used for Jesus’ saying about the “den of thieves”, and for His protest against being arrested by enough folks to make Him look like a dangerous criminal. John calls Barabbas a leistes, also.

John doesn’t describe the other two guys; he just calls them the “other two” guys.

 

[Evan]

Perhaps, like Padre Pio, Jesus had insight into this fellow’s heart. Even though not spoken, the proper internal conversion may have been evident to the Son of God.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If I’m not mistaking, he underwent what is termed as a “Baptism of Desire,” that is, his own desire to be cleansed and to be with Jesus proved salvific in light of not being able to be formally baptized.

Tradition has it that when the side of Christ was pierced, he was baptized by the water and blood that flowed out from it.

Another way to look at it is that at this time heaven was still closed and Christ was on his way to hell/hades to rescue the righteous patriarchs (Adam, Eve, Abraham, Isaac, etc.). Its possible the Thief went to that place as well but was immediately rescued by Christ.

 

[po18guy]

In addition to that, the “theif” knew Jesus well enough to recognize His face, WHILE dying on a cross, even after Jesus had been beaten.

I don’t buy that the good thief NECESSARILY underwent baptism of desire… or the protestant line that this was a total conversion on the cross… with that level of intimacy with a person, it is entirely possible that the person was a follower of Christ already, who was condemned under some roman law that was unjust (or under rabbinic law, which was never God’s law in the first place).

Nowhere is Dismas identified as having anything to do with Jesus. In more ancient bibles, he is referred to as a cutthroat - a robber or even murderer. Remember that Barabbas was held for murder, but not crucified. So, just how bad were Dismas and his companion?

The Church names Dismas only by tradition, and the baptism of desire is certainly valid, from all available scriptural evidence as well as tradition handed down.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Luke says they were “kakourgos” – literally, “evil-doers.” Criminals. They did Really Bad Things.

Matthew and Mark call them “leistes” – literally, “booty-ers”. Brigands. Robbers and plunderers. This is the same word Luke uses for the highway bandit baddies who beat up the guy rescued by the Good Samaritan. It’s also the word used for Jesus’ saying about the “den of thieves”, and for His protest against being arrested by enough folks to make Him look like a dangerous criminal. John calls Barabbas a leistes, also.

John doesn’t describe the other two guys; he just calls them the “other two” guys.

This post is a keeper!

Excellent factual information!!



[Just guessing, but probably the Romans didn’t have jails in those days. Which is probably the reason for flogging and for execution. For “minor” offenses, you would be flogged. If you were a “career criminal”, then you would be executed. Perhaps, if you were “only” a debtor, then they would lock you up, but your relatives would have to bring you food … the reason for the command to visit prisoners. The people were generally poor; so if you stole from them, the “community” would take a dim view of it. None of this stuff today where it is only a crime against property … it took a huge amount of work to collect “property”, so if you stole it, then it was a major loss to the victim and to the community as well.]

 

[promethius]

Nowhere is Dismas identified as having anything to do with Jesus. In more ancient bibles, he is referred to as a cutthroat - a robber or even murderer.

Um… the identification of Jesus is that he recognized Jesus… not only who He was, but also WHAT He was, in detail. This denotes someone who is at least FAMILIAR with Jesus’ teachings prior to the crucifixion (unless we believe that Dismus received a revelation even more impressive than Peter’s directly from God).

All I’m saying is that he was familiar with Jesus’ teaching, and therefore we cannot assume that this was a total conversion from square zero… as protestants would like to assert.

Remember that Barabbas was held for murder, but not crucified.

Barabbas is also traditionally held to be a revolutionary… meaning he had popularity with Jerusalem’s Jewry because he saught to overthrow Roman occupation. As is recorded, he was released only because the Jews asked for it as a tradition surrounding passover… the Romans would never have chosen to release a revolutionary of their own accord.

So, just how bad were Dismas and his companion?

We’re talking about a culture that thought christianity was bad enough a crime that it deserved being fed to lions… so I don’t put a lot of stock into Rome’s view of morality and crime. Remember, Jesus was crucified when Barabbas wasn’t… so according to your logic, He (Jesus) was worse than a murderer too. Since that is not the case, we can’t assume the same logic for the others.

Next, as already covered above about Barabbas… the Romans generally killed anyone who might continually upset the status quo.

Third, I see nowhere that a life of prior crime is anti-thetical to christianity. We have no clue when the good theif heard of Jesus or his teachings… we only know that he knew of them before he reached the Cross. All I’m saying is that it is possible that he was baptised shortly before, as in just before being captured by the Romans for a life of crime. (Although granted “roman morality” , I would not consider whatever he was accused of as automatically as grave as advertised).

The Church names Dismas only by tradition, and the baptism of desire is certainly valid, from all available scriptural evidence as well as tradition handed down.

I didn’t say that baptism of desire was invalid. What I said was that I don’t NECESSARILY buy the argument that this was an on the spot conversion, which dismisses both the argument that sacraments don’t matter (protestant) and that it HAD to be a baptism of desire (catholic). All I’m saying is that there is a hidden third option: that he was already a baptised Christian.