Does God only forgive the repentant?

[wmw]

I talk of these two common uses for the word forgive/forgiven not in any formal way that there has to be maintained these two ways of understanding. It is just how I see some of the confusion that gives the pause that allows this false traction to the argument of being saved without repentance.

My agreement is to Grannymh’s post (#94).

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny, too much to respond to at once, here. I am interested as to whether or not you read the link to Cardinal Ratzinger’s work. I agree with him on that part, and so I am feeling fairly comfortable saying that he and I are in the room. To me, the body is not defined by like-mindedness, Granny. It has to do with community, with relationship. And in so saying, this may be the most major difference between your approach and my own.

snip

To me, Granny, the room is a mystery. We could go back and forth as far as who is objectively included in the Catholic Church and not. I think of “Church” as at least inclusive of all who profess a faith in Christ. Does it matter what I think? Not really. What does matter is, do I hold anything against anyone? If someone has a different opinion than I do, how do I feel toward the person? Is there someone I need to forgive? How can I reach out with love to other who are suffering?

What I am saying is that IMO like-mindedness is a bit over-rated. Church is about communion, community, relationship. You are in mine, Granny, am I in yours?

Would you kindly take the time to re-read what you have been posting.

You say in post 95 that the room is a mystery.
To me, Granny, the room is a mystery. We could go back and forth as far as who is objectively included in the Catholic Church and not. I think of “Church” as at least inclusive of all who profess a faith in Christ. Does it matter what I think?
What you also say at the beginning of post 95 is very clear, no mystery.
I agree with him on that part, and so I am feeling fairly comfortable saying that he and I are in the room. To me, the body is not defined by like-mindedness, Granny. It has to do with community, with relationship. And in so saying, this may be the most major difference between your approach and my own.
Truth is that the Catholic Church is defined by its like-mindedness to its Head Who is Jesus Christ. The Mystical Body of Christ is not some
free-for-all place where people oppose each other whenever they want.

There are some serious errors in the “mystery” room for everyone’s different opinions which is also known as “big tent” substitute for the Catholic Church. For general information. Google found this definition for big tent. “A group, especially a political coalition, that accommodates people who have a wide range of beliefs, principles, or backgrounds.” Accommodation of a variety of backgrounds has always been a part of the Catholic Church.

When the wide range of beliefs and principles appear to contradict Divine Revelation, there is a history of going back and forth to arrive at objective truths. Once doctrines are duly defined under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they may be made more explicit, but they are never cancelled. The serious error of cancelling doctrines is allowed in the big tent because there are no specific guidelines for relationships. All different/opposing beliefs can be accommodated as long as there is community.

It is a serious error to claim that the “mystery” room is not defined by like-mindedness. This can be viewed as an insult to Jesus Christ Whose Real Presence unites all members in like-mindedness of Himself. It is a serious error to substitute community and relationships for the foundational purpose of the Catholic Church which is to bring all people into the Kingdom of God on planet earth and in eternal joy after bodily death. Community and relationships are the result of Church unity under the one Jesus Christ and not the result of conflicting opinions.

Before I forget. After what happened in posts 79-80, I will buy Cardinal Ratzinger’s book Introduction to Christianity because that is much safer.

It is a very serious error

to present false teachings based on the false assumption that the Catholic Church has room for opposition to established doctrines. The Catholic Church knows that “opposition to established doctrines” can be used to draw members away from the truth of Catholicism. For example, the truth of the Sacrament of Confession and Reconciliation.

Finally, at the end of post 95.
What I am saying is that IMO like-mindedness is a bit over-rated. Church is about communion, community, relationship. You are in mine, Granny, am I in yours?

No answer.

 

[wmw]

Now I move to blow away the other pillar of support that suposes that Cardinal Ratzinger is in agreement with this saving forgiveness without repentance, but in the same article it is clarified that he does not.

The OP wants only to repeat this piece of the quote from robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

The New Testament does not say that men conciliate God, as we really ought to expect, since after all it is they [non-Christian religious people who make sacrifices] who have failed, not God. It says on the contrary that `God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’ (2 Cor. 5, 19). This is truly something new, something unheard of – the starting-point of Christian existence and the center of New Testament theology of the cross: God does not wait until the guilty come to be reconciled; he goes to meet them and reconciles them. Here we can see the true direction of the incarnation, of the Cross.

But even this article concludes with more from Cardinal Ratzinger :

…In this form of worship human achievements are not placed before God; on the contrary, it consists in man’s letting himself be endowed with gifts; we do not glorify God by supposedly giving to him out of our resources – as if they were not his already! – but by letting ourselves be endowed with his own gifts and thus recognizing him as the only Lord. We worship him by dropping the fiction of a realm in which we could face him as independent business partners, whereas in truth we can only exist at all in him and from him. Christian sacrifice does not consist in a giving of what God would to have without us but in our becoming totally receptive and letting ourselves be completely taken over by him. Letting God act on us – that is Christian sacrifice.

Thus, it is clear that the Cardinal later to become Pope is not saying there is unrepentant forgiveness of sin, but that with accepting of gifts, recognizing Him as Lord, becoming totally receptive, and letting ourselves be completely taken over we are acted upon by his grace that seperates us from sin. None of these actions would lead one to think the Cardinal was talking about anyone who is unrepentant.

 

[Sirach2]

Well said, WMW. I utterly object to the way OneSheep has twisted the Cardinal’s words in order to promote his own notion of universalism. I’m glad someone else has noticed, as well.

 

[simpleas]

Just thinking on this thread reminded me of when my mother told me our priest told her in confession that she didn’t need absolution. My mother was really shocked at this, as in all her years (she is 75yrs old ) she had never been refused absolution.
I asked her how that made her feel, she said she felt that she wasn’t forgiven in a way, because God gives the priest the power to forgive and he didn’t think she needed forgiveness. She went to another priest and confession was done in the normal way. Then she felt she had a clear conscience. We recently heard of a few other people of my mums age were the priest tells them they don’t need absolution.

Isn’t this a priest acting on his own opinion, were the person has felt need of forgiveness from God even over small sins, their conscience prompts them to go to confession yet the priest tells them they haven’t really sinned?
Who’s power is the priest administering, seems its his own, when I thought absolution was always given to a sincere repentanting person?

 

[Sirach2]

Just thinking on this thread reminded me of when my mother told me our priest told her in confession that she didn’t need absolution. My mother was really shocked at this, as in all her years (she is 75yrs old ) she had never been refused absolution.

Isn’t this a priest acting on his own opinion, where the person has felt need of forgiveness from God even over small sins, their conscience prompts them to go to confession yet the priest tells them they haven’t really sinned?
Who’s power is the priest administering, seems its his own, when I thought absolution was always given to a sincere repentanting person?

Well, this is second-hand information, and she may not be certain of the words of the priest. He may have put her mind at ease, saying that her sins were not scarlet, so to speak. Yet the priest’s absolution is often somewhat silent while we pray the Act of Contrition, so it is possible she did not hear the actual words.

Yes, the priest acts *in persona Christi. *It is always good to confess venial sins, and even imperfections, to obtain the graces from the sacrament to strive for perfection. “Be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.” She most likely just confessed an imperfection, which is not even a sin, so his advice would be appropriate.

 

[grannymh]

Luke 23: 34

Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do."

These loving, merciful words are not an attack on the Sacrament of Repentance and Reconciliation.

These words are meant to touch each soul, today, giving grace so that a person can look carefully at one’s own life. What sin is it that we need to bring before our Crucified Lord in the Sacrament of Repentance and Reconciliation? We need to bow our heads and ask for forgiveness. Our Lord Jesus is there before us, as the Priest listens to our sorrow. Our Lord Jesus is there before us, ready to restore the State of Sanctifying Grace in a darkened soul, as the Priest, in God’s name, gives us absolution.

John 21, 15-17

**Jesus said, “Do you love me?” **

In the Sacrament of Repentance and Reconciliation, we answer yes.

 

[simpleas]

Well, this is second-hand information, and she may not be certain of the words of the priest. He may have put her mind at ease, saying that her sins were not scarlet, so to speak. Yet the priest’s absolution is often somewhat silent while we pray the Act of Contrition, so it is possible she did not hear the actual words.

Yes, the priest acts *in persona Christi. *It is always good to confess venial sins, and even imperfections, to obtain the graces from the sacrament to strive for perfection. “Be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.” She most likely just confessed an imperfection, which is not even a sin, so his advice would be appropriate.

Thanks.
I double checked with her and she definately heard the words, “you don’t need absolution” Granted more was likely said, confession being a private thing I won’t press for details. I was just considering how a priest can make this decision, when a person feels the need to confess, a priest can withhold the sacrament in his judgement.

 

[Sirach2]

Thanks.
I double checked with her and she definately heard the words, “you don’t need absolution” Granted more was likely said, confession being a private thing I won’t press for details. I was just considering how a priest can make this decision, when a person feels the need to confess, a priest can withhold the sacrament in his judgment.

Did he really withhold absolution, though? Did she recite the Act of Contrition? Did he positively tell her to leave and that she ought not to confess?

This being an isolated occurrence, should never make you doubt the authenticity of the sacrament, nor the validity of Holy Orders, nor the thousands of good priests who administer it according to the rubrics.

As you said, she made her confession elsewhere, so I see no valid reason to post this publicly, other than for a tsk-tsk. Again, you do not know the content of her confession, and the fact that it may have been a recital of imperfections which are in no way a sin.

 

[OneSheep]

[/INDENT]Truth is that the Catholic Church is defined by its like-mindedness to its Head Who is Jesus Christ. The Mystical Body of Christ is not some
free-for-all place where people oppose each other whenever they want

Jesus said, “I come with a sword”. Disagreement happens even when we all follow Christ, because none are omniscient. It should never divide relationships, though. Never.

Do you see Cardinal Ratzinger and Anselm as “like-minded”? Perhaps you do. The term “like-minded” has been undefined here. However, IMO they differ in perspective a bit, but both views are within the Catholic Church. Can we agree on that?

There are some serious errors in the “mystery” room for everyone’s different opinions which is also known as “big tent” substitute for the Catholic Church. For general information. Google found this definition for big tent. “A group, especially a political coalition, that accommodates people who have a wide range of beliefs, principles, or backgrounds.” Accommodation of a variety of backgrounds has always been a part of the Catholic Church.

When the wide range of beliefs and principles appear to contradict Divine Revelation, there is a history of going back and forth to arrive at objective truths. Once doctrines are duly defined under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they may be made more explicit, but they are never cancelled. The serious error of cancelling doctrines is allowed in the big tent because there are no specific guidelines for relationships. All different/opposing beliefs can be accommodated as long as there is community.

It is a serious error to claim that the “mystery” room is not defined by like-mindedness. This can be viewed as an insult to Jesus Christ Whose Real Presence unites all members in like-mindedness of Himself. It is a serious error to substitute community and relationships for the foundational purpose of the Catholic Church which is to bring all people into the Kingdom of God on planet earth and in eternal joy after bodily death. Community and relationships are the result of Church unity under the one Jesus Christ and not the result of conflicting opinions.

Anything can be viewed as an insult to Jesus, it is a matter of perspective. Are Anselm and Cardinal Ratzinger like-minded? I say it depends on the definition. Does the CCC address like-mindedness Granny?

Before I forget. After what happened in posts 79-80, I will buy Cardinal Ratzinger’s book Introduction to Christianity because that is much safer.

Mine is on the way. We will have to discuss it:thumbsup:!

It is a very serious error

to present false teachings based on the false assumption that the Catholic Church has room for opposition to established doctrines. The Catholic Church knows that “opposition to established doctrines” can be used to draw members away from the truth of Catholicism. For example, the truth of the Sacrament of Confession and Reconciliation.

There are some basics we all agree on, and the basics can evolve too. Love transcends all, Granny. We can disagree, and then sit down at the table together.

I like it when someone tells me ‘I don’t agree.’ This is a true collaborator. When they say ‘Oh, how great, how great, how great,’ that’s not useful.

Do you know who said that, Granny?

Finally, at the end of post 95.
What I am saying is that IMO like-mindedness is a bit over-rated. Church is about communion, community, relationship. You are in mine, Granny, am I in yours?

No answer.

Jesus reaches to both of us with love. When you go to communion this week, know that there are people coming to the table with different views, Granny. Are you one with them, or are you not? Are you accepting God, but not some of the others at the table? Think on it, Granny.

 

[OneSheep]

Thus, it is clear that the Cardinal later to become Pope is not saying there is unrepentant forgiveness of sin, but that with accepting of gifts, recognizing Him as Lord, becoming totally receptive, and letting ourselves be completely taken over we are acted upon by his grace that seperates us from sin. None of these actions would lead one to think the Cardinal was talking about anyone who is unrepentant.

Hello wmw.

For the record, I never said that Cardinal Ratzinger agrees with me that God forgives the unrepentant. He may agree, he may not, and the section you quoted does not, to me, clearly say one way or the other.

Here it is again:

…In this form of worship human achievements are not placed before God; on the contrary, it consists in man’s letting himself be endowed with gifts; we do not glorify God by supposedly giving to him out of our resources – as if they were not his already! – but by letting ourselves be endowed with his own gifts and thus recognizing him as the only Lord. We worship him by dropping the fiction of a realm in which we could face him as independent business partners, whereas in truth we can only exist at all in him and from him. Christian sacrifice does not consist in a giving of what God would to have without us but in our becoming totally receptive and letting ourselves be completely taken over by him. Letting God act on us – that is Christian sacrifice.

He was describing Christian sacrifice and forms of worship, not God’s forgiveness. He was saying that Christian sacrifice is not a matter of expiation, which puts the paragraph in context. Remember, his theme was expiation.

He is also stating that we are nothing without God. I totally agree.

You are seeing something slightly different. Not a problem. Feel free to clarify. In the mean time, God bless your day.

 

[simpleas]

Did he really withhold absolution, though? Did she recite the Act of Contrition? Did he positively tell her to leave and that she ought not to confess?

This being an isolated occurrence, should never make you doubt the authenticity of the sacrament, nor the validity of Holy Orders, nor the thousands of good priests who administer it according to the rubrics.

As you said, she made her confession elsewhere, so I see no valid reason to post this publicly, other than for a tsk-tsk. Again, you do not know the content of her confession, and the fact that it may have been a recital of imperfections which are in no way a sin.

I have asked again, the act of contrition was recited, but when she expected absolution to be given, he told her she did not need it. My mother would never question a priest, so she just said thank you and left.
I’m not trying to debate this, I just thought on it.
When you go to confession you expect to be forgiven, I didn’t know priests could make their own judgement on someones sins, even tiny veinal sins. I thought they were there to forgive all sins in the name of Jesus.

 

[Sirach2]

I have asked again, the act of contrition was recited, but when she expected absolution to be given, he told her she did not need it. My mother would never question a priest, so she just said thank you and left.
I’m not trying to debate this, I just thought on it.
When you go to confession you expect to be forgiven, I didn’t know priests could make their own judgement on someones sins, even tiny veinal sins. I thought they were there to forgive all sins in the name of Jesus.

You were not there to know what she confessed, nor what the priest said, but are hearing all of this second hand. He is ordained to bind or to loose in this sacrament, but since he deemed the matter confessed not to be sinful, then there was no need to bestow absolution.

Many are scrupulous to the point that if they step on a cross in a sidewalk, they believe they have crucified Jesus anew. It really does get crazy. All you can do is trust that he knew what he was doing, and refrain from considering this as a wrong on the priest’s part.

And please stop questioning her. You may force her to reveal what she confessed in violation of the seal of confession, simply to prove a point here.

 

[grannymh]

There are some basics we all agree on, and the basics can evolve too. Love transcends all, Granny. We can disagree, and then sit down at the table together.

That is a great idea! Let’s sit down.

I have had an eureka moment with my clothes on. You may find this interesting to discuss according to the questions I ask.

I found the flaw in this popular statement which may sound somewhat logical until one actually thinks about it from the Catholic Church point of view.
Here is the flawed statement.
If God’s love is unconditional, and forgiveness is an act of love,
then God’s forgiveness would not be conditioned on repentance.

Looking at this statement from the Creator’s point of view. What action does God actually perform when He forgives a Mortal Sin? What really and truly happens when God says “I forgive your Mortal Sin?” What is the sign of forgiveness for Mortal Sin in addition to the words of absolution which follows the other requirements for a good Confession?

If you don’t know the answer, here is one last huge hint. What happens to our own human nature when God forgives our Mortal Sin?

If there is no answer …that means that the statement “If God’s love is unconditional, and forgiveness is an act of love, then God’s forgiveness would not be conditioned on repentance.” …is totally false. Thus, it is leading people away from the truths of Catholicism.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I sure am glad that God Is God and that none of us are.

As Jesus said when asked by His Apostles, “Who can be saved?”, “With man it is impossible but with God ALL things are possible”.

Seems that many think/believe that God’s Plan is very uncatholic, I thank God that it is GOD’S PLAN, whether we agree with it or not, and that God’s Plan is very catholic and that God “knows” just how to make God’s Plan come to Fruition.

Seeing as it clearly and simply states that “It is God’s Will that ALL be saved”, could be that God’s Plan, which God has had since before creation, will come to Fruition and that God’s Plan is that ALL WILL BE SAVED.

I trust that God has come up with a “Plan”, even before creation itself, that seems to be in conflict with what some seem to want, sad to say.

 

[simpleas]

You were not there to know what she confessed, nor what the priest said, but are hearing all of this second hand. He is ordained to bind or to loose in this sacrament, but since he deemed the matter confessed not to be sinful, then there was no need to bestow absolution.

Many are scrupulous to the point that if they step on a cross in a sidewalk, they believe they have crucified Jesus anew. It really does get crazy. All you can do is trust that he knew what he was doing, and refrain from considering this as a wrong on the priest’s part.

And please stop questioning her. You may force her to reveal what she confessed in violation of the seal of confession, simply to prove a point here.

Oh I’m sorry, I do beg your pardon, I was answering your three questions within the quote on post # 107. I didn’t realise you didn’t expect an answer.

I asked her again, so that I wasn’t in error of what she said.

My mother isn’t scrupulous, she was just surprised more than anything about what happened. .

I don’t know, maybe its a good thing to be refused absolution, a person must be on the right path if that happens!

Anyway all is good as like was said before, she confessed with another priest.

 

[OneSheep]

That is a great idea! Let’s sit down.

I have had an eureka moment with my clothes on. You may find this interesting to discuss according to the questions I ask.

I found the flaw in this popular statement which may sound somewhat logical until one actually thinks about it from the Catholic Church point of view.
Here is the flawed statement.
If God’s love is unconditional, and forgiveness is an act of love,
then God’s forgiveness would not be conditioned on repentance.

Looking at this statement from the Creator’s point of view. What action does God actually perform when He forgives a Mortal Sin? What really and truly happens when God says “I forgive your Mortal Sin?” What is the sign of forgiveness for Mortal Sin in addition to the words of absolution which follows the other requirements for a good Confession?

If you don’t know the answer, here is one last huge hint. What happens to our own human nature when God forgives our Mortal Sin?

If there is no answer …that means that the statement “If God’s love is unconditional, and forgiveness is an act of love, then God’s forgiveness would not be conditioned on repentance.” …is totally false. Thus, it is leading people away from the truths of Catholicism.

Well, I have my answer. God created us good. As Saint Augustine said, everything about us is good, and through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists is good. So, before God forgives us we are good, and after God forgives us, we are still good. But such forgiveness assumes that God has ever held something against us in the first place, that he has taken offense, and that brings us back to your pet topic, Original Sin, Adam, etc. And, according to Granny, a person cannot have a faith in Jesus unless he believes in original sin, and I am going to say that is not necessarily the case, and you are going to insist it is because the CCC says so. I don’t see the human as stained, and you do.

Now that we have that out of the way , I say that Jesus forgave the unrepentant, and you say no. The priest that taught me said that God always forgives, and you disagree. My question is, can you walk up to receive communion with me? In your view, I am obviously not repenting from my belief that God forgives everyone, which is the God I know in my prayer life. Do you forgive me, Granny, or will you not join me at the table? It is holy week, dear. Pray on it

In the mean time, you are talking about a God who demands expiation, which is the Anselm view, and Cardinal Ratzinger presents a different way of looking at the whole. So, given that the Cardinal was not leading people away from Catholicism, and he actually characterized Anselm’s view as presenting a “false picture”, (which I disagree with in terms of language) perhaps we should all avoid the use of the word “false” for the moment and focus on more important things like love, community, and reconciliation. Come to the table, Granny. There are people with different views of God, “cafeteria Catholics”, apathetic Catholics, scrupulous Catholics, ultra conservatives, ultra liberals, a whole variety. Come to the table!

 

[wmw]

Two of the statements that the council of Trent defined as heretical:

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

The negative document we call the canons on baptism decreed by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, De Baptismo), in which the following doctrines are anathematized (declared heretical):
…
Baptized persons are not obliged to observe all the precepts of the Church, written and traditional, unless of their own accord they wish to submit to them.
…
All sins committed after baptism are either forgiven or rendered venial by the sole remembrance and faith of the baptism that has been received.
…

 

[Sirach2]

Two of the statements that the council of Trent defined as heretical:

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Thank you so much, WMW. However, you are probably preaching to the choir where our universalist is concerned, unfortunately. This good Council’s anathema’s will fall on his deaf ears.

 

[Sirach2]

Just a couple more references (from the Catholic Encyclopedia) to add to WMW’s fine contributions in this thread.

From Church Father, Tertullian, Chapter 6:

For repentance is the price at which the Lord has determined to award pardon: He proposes the redemption of release from penalty at this compensating exchange of repentance.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0320.htm

Q. How can Christian theologians say that God is perfectly merciful if he still punishes some people? Wouldn’t he be more perfectly merciful if he forgave every one?
No.
God is perfectly merciful in that he perfectly displays the virtue of mercy. This means that he is merciful to the right degree, with the right motive, and in the right circumstances. But some people and some circumstances are not the right ones.** It is not appropriate to forgive a person’s sins when he is defiant and unrepentant.** It may be appropriate to continue trying to lead him to repentance, but it is not fitting for him to be forgiven even before he has admitted he was wrong.

God is perfectly merciful in the sense that he is merciful in the best way, not in the sense that he forgives every single sin people commit. Some sins (those of which people have not repented) are not appropriate to forgive.
http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock94.htm