forgiveness of sins

[Anna_Scott]

3] What does confess our sins corporately mean? You mean like at Mass during the introductory rites, such as during the Penitential ? I heard of a general absolution but only in most dire circumstances ? Also what this doesn’t address is the difference of the particular sin and sinfulness. While the sin is no doubt addressed by the confessor so is the bigger picture. . . . .

. . . . .The penitential recited at mass I mentioned is…

“I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do,
And, striking their breast , they say :
through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.” . . . .

Gary,

Yes, a “corporate confession” is part of the Penitential Order which precedes the Holy Eucharist.

This is a quote from Rite Two The U.S. 1979 Book of Common Prayer:

Most merciful God,
we confess that we have sinned against you
in thought, word, and deed,
by what we have done,
and by what we have left undone.
We have not loved you with our whole heart;
we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.
We are truly sorry and we humbly repent.
For the sake of your Son Jesus Christ,
have mercy on us and forgive us;
that we may delight in your will,
and walk in your ways,
to the glory of your Name. Amen.

The Bishop when present, or the Priest, stands and says

Almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you all your sins
through our Lord Jesus Christ, strengthen you in all
goodness, and by the power of the Holy Spirit keep you
in eternal life. Amen.
_________________________________________________

This Exhortation, taken from Rite One, may precede confession:

Beloved in the Lord: Our Savior Christ, on the night before
he suffered, instituted the Sacrament of his Body and
Blood as a sign and pledge of his love, for the continual
remembrance of the sacrifice of his death, and for a spiritual
sharing in his risen life. For in these holy Mysteries we are
made one with Christ, and Christ with us; we are made one
body in him, and members one of another.

Having in mind, therefore, his great love for us, and in
obedience to his command, his Church renders to Almighty
God our heavenly Father never-ending thanks for the
creation of the world, for his continual providence over us,
for his love for all mankind, and for the redemption of the
world by our Savior Christ, who took upon himself our flesh,
and humbled himself even to death on the cross, that he
might make us the children of God by the power of the Holy
Spirit, and exalt us to everlasting life.

But if we are to share rightly in the celebration of those holy
Mysteries, and be nourished by that spiritual Food, we must remember the dignity of that holy Sacrament. I therefore call
upon you to consider how Saint Paul exhorts all persons to
prepare themselves carefully before eating of that Bread and
drinking of that Cup.

For, as the benefit is great, if with penitent hearts and living
faith we receive the holy Sacrament, so is the danger great, if
we receive it improperly, not recognizing the Lord’s Body.
Judge yourselves, therefore, lest you be judged by the Lord.

Examine your lives and conduct by the rule of God’s
commandments, that you may perceive wherein you have
offended in what you have done or left undone, whether in
thought, word, or deed.

And acknowledge your sins before
Almighty God, with full purpose of amendment of life, being
ready to make restitution for all injuries and wrongs done by
you to others; and also being ready to forgive those who have
offended you, in order that you yourselves may be forgiven.
And then, being reconciled with one another, come to the
banquet of that most heavenly Food.

And if, in your preparation, you need help and counsel, then
go and open your grief to a discreet and understanding priest,
and confess your sins, that you may receive the benefit of
absolution, and spiritual counsel and advice; to the removal
of scruple and doubt, the assurance of pardon, and the
strengthening of your faith. (emphasis is mine)
_____________________________________________

More later,
Anna

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is a completely different conversation. Protestant views on Baptism are varied.

Apparently so, and we agree these are various and a new understandings in Christs Kingdom which I would venture to say even Luther would whole heartedly reject?

You don’t think its a slight of the intellect which preceded us by 2000 years? I’d like to think we are now more Intelligent than those who preceded us. However, I still find myself being taught by these Saints, you?

 

[Kliska]

Apparently so, and we agree these are various and a new understandings in Christs Kingdom which I would venture to say even Luther would whole heartedly reject?

You don’t think its a slight of the intellect which preceded us by 2000 years? I’d like to think we are now more Intelligent than those who preceded us. However, I still find myself being taught by these Saints, you?

Absolutely, but we don’t believe they were infallible, nor was Luther, and there were false teachings and even false action/leaning in the earliest church, even when the Apostles directly taught congregations and leaders. Peter needed correction from Paul to make sure he didn’t misrepresent the faith. If false practice and teaching were not able to creep in we wouldn’t be warned about it so strongly, and as was pointed out there were already wolves among the sheep.

If we can agree there are scenarios where baptism is not possible, yet the person can still be cleansed and saved, it is clear that it is not “necessary.” That is why the RCC came up with the idea of Baptism by desire. Yet, if that person is truly saved, then something far deeper than water is cleansing that person. Those that believe like me believe that that happens for every person, and the water is the sign of it, not the cause of it. Regardless, baptism was called for so should be performed, as well as confessing our sin to one another. They are a true witness and a true help indeed.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If there are individual oubts or scruples. But it is not a necessary prerequisite to receiving Holy Commmunion but confession of sins is. .

The only doubt I see is the doubt one even needs to confess, which to me leaves all scruples in the hands of one who doesn’t see this as a necessity to begin with.

I am glad you do not assume the mind of God but that still does not answer the question…

Your confessor has the answers you do not, that’s “why” you should go and it should be mandatory.

If I went to private confession and forgot a few sins, would God forgive them? What if I forgot to confess ONE mortal sin and then died in a car crash on the way home. Am I damned to hell? .

If you spoke to the confessor and regular you would have these answers instead of assuming the mind of God?

We could go back to praying for others. Does God only hear the prayers of the people that I name or does He hear my prayers for those I remember and do not remember.?.

Does God hear the prayers you do not remember? If that were the case we could eliminate confession all together and go with “God knows all”

That is completely up to the barbarian and God. .

And those such as with the alcoholic, which you admit,“I hope my advice and years in the program can help guide them”

No I do not. My sponsoring someone and being there for them does not keep them from drinking again if they wish to. I hope my advice and years in the program can help guide them. Sometimes it works and other times it does not. That is between the alcoholic and their High Power…

Probably a similar sentiment of the confessor? One thing is certain your advice not given is most assured is not helping them.

I speak for myself when I am confessing just as you do when you confess. Not sure what you mean by this. .

But your not speaking at all in general confession. Isn’t this “why” you suggest to participates of AA to actually participate in their own recovery? Or will they recover by just listening and turning it over to the higher power. You know as well as I without an active role its futile path.

How is general confession seeking “self help?” We are seeking God’s forgiveness. If it were self help then there would be no need to confess either general or private.

"I hope my advice and years in the program can help guide them. Sometimes it works and other times it does not. That is between the alcoholic and their High Power. "

Confession and mandatory?

 

[aidanbradypop]

The only doubt I see is the doubt one even needs to confess, which to me leaves all scruples in the hands of one who doesn’t see this as a necessity to begin with.

Gary confession is necessary. I do not see anywhere that I stated otherwise. We must confess and the priest grant absolution.

I do not get where you keep getting that Episcopalians do not believe confessing our sins is not a necessity.

Your confessor has the answers you do not, that’s “why” you should go and it should be mandatory.

If you spoke to the confessor and regular you would have these answers instead of assuming the mind of God?

Does God hear the prayers you do not remember? If that were the case we could eliminate confession all together and go with “God knows all”

This is a circle so we will simply agree to disagree here I guess.

Probably a similar sentiment of the confessor? One thing is certain your advice not given is most assured is not helping them.

Never stated we should not go and get advice. Quite often I have stated that I wish more Episcopalians would do private confession.

But your not speaking at all in general confession. Isn’t this “why” you suggest to participates of AA to actually participate in their own recovery? Or will they recover by just listening and turning it over to the higher power. You know as well as I without an active role its futile path.

Yes we do. We say a prayer as well as private reflection. Just like in meetings where we have a moment of silence for the addicts in and out of the room that still suffer.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If we can agree there are scenarios where baptism is not possible, yet the person can still be cleansed and saved, it is clear that it is not “necessary.” That is why the RCC came up with the idea of Baptism by desire. Yet, if that person is truly saved, then something far deeper than water is cleansing that person. Those that believe like me believe that that happens for every person, and the water is the sign of it, not the cause of it. Regardless, baptism was called for so should be performed, as well as confessing our sin to one another. They are a true witness and a true help indeed.

But if we confess our sins to one another and the one you confessed to retains the sin, then what?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary confession is necessary. I do not see anywhere that I stated otherwise. We must confess and the priest grant absolution…

If its not mandatory then the ignorant must come to understand this through divine wisdom like the barbarian and the alcoholic. But treatment is necessary…AMEN!

I do not get where you keep getting that Episcopalians do not believe confessing our sins is not a necessity. .

Above

This is a circle so we will simply agree to disagree here I guess. .

Circular that we should just assume God knows everything including our forgotten sin, so why bother at all…“he knows”

Never stated we should not go and get advice. Quite often I have stated that I wish more Episcopalians would do private confession. .

But its not mandatory so we would suggest the ignorant find there way through the maze as with the examples I suggest which indeed you know are correct. I would suggest your defending something you don’t even believe in.

Yes we do. We say a prayer as well as private reflection. Just like in meetings where we have a moment of silence for the addicts in and out of the room that still suffer.

Then the addicts one by one pour their hearts out in confession. Hi my name is Bill and I am a Alcoholic and I am having a hard time with my car which is on automatic pilot heading to the package store. And they indeed vent, confess and receive help? Very Catholic sounding. Guys must have been Catholic who invented that.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t think England will be changing policy today.

 

[Kliska]

But if we confess our sins to one another and the one you confessed to retains the sin, then what?

I don’t believe the sacrament of reconciliation is what is taught in scripture. If I were to confess to someone for a sin against God, and they said, “well, your sin isn’t forgiven,” it’s a moot point. The idea of retaining is tied to the gospel message and it’s spread as explained up-thread from my POV, not to private confession/confessors.

 

[aidanbradypop]

If its not mandatory then the ignorant must come to understand this through divine wisdom like the barbarian and the alcoholic. But treatment is necessary…AMEN!

Confession is mandatory…private confession is not.

Circular that we should just assume God knows everything including our forgotten sin, so why bother at all…“he knows”

Sure Gary if that is how you are choosing to see it. I have stated otherwise but I guess it doesn’t matter.

But its not mandatory so we would suggest the ignorant find there way through the maze as with the examples I suggest which indeed you know are correct. I would suggest your defending something you don’t even believe in.

Private confession is useless!..would that help you out in your argument more if I stated that?

I do not know what you keep trying to get out. I believe in private confession as does every other Episcopalian. Is that not getting across? If so I am sorry. I thought I have stated that many times.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t think England will be changing policy today.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t believe the sacrament of reconciliation is what is taught in scripture.

Matthew- While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

He didn’t say this is bread, nor did he say this is a symbol? Could be me but this seems important since its in the 4-Gospels and Paul.

marysanawim.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/this-is-my-body-this-is-my-blood/

“I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him. As I, who am sent by the living Father, myself draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will draw life from me. This is the bread that came down from heaven; not like the bread that your ancestors ate; they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live forever (John 6:48-58).”

Fallible?

 

[Anna_Scott]

God works through the Sacraments, but He is not limited to the Sacraments. God saves who He wills, when he wills, and how He wills. The Sacraments, in this case reconciliation are an aid to a perpetual state of grace. . .

. . . .If we can agree there are scenarios where baptism is not possible, yet the person can still be cleansed and saved, it is clear that it is not “necessary.” . . . .

Kliska,

IMHO, this is one of the most dangerous teachings to come out of Reformation theology. Usually, the salvation of the thief on the cross is used to try to justify that nothing apart from “faith” is necessary for salvation.

You are basically saying that if one person (through no fault of their own, as the thief on the Cross) is saved without doing what was commanded by Christ and taught by the Apostles; then the rest of us get a free pass.

Think about what this line of thinking really means: no one would have any need to participate in the Lord’s Supper; no one would need to be Baptized; no one would need to spread the Gospel; no one would need to help the poor, feed the hungry; or give of ourselves in any way–all because one person obtained salvation without doing any of these things.

If we are able to do what the New Testament reveals as necessary, then it is necessary.

If we are able to be Baptized, then it is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. If this is not true then Peter mislead thousands of people: “Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2:38

If we are able to partake of The Lord’s Supper/Holy Eucharist to be raised on the last day to eternal life, then it is necessary. If this is not true, then Jesus mislead the Jews when he said, "54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; John 6:54

I’m not trying to derail the thread into a Baptism/Holy Eucharist discussion. I’m simply giving examples.

Remember the parable of the vineyard?

Matthew 20:1-16
20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for the usual daily wage,a] he sent them into his vineyard. 3 When he went out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace; 4 and he said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went.

5 When he went out again about noon and about three o’clock, he did the same. 6 And about five o’clock he went out and found others standing around; and he said to them, ‘Why are you standing here idle all day?’ 7 They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard.’

8 When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, ‘Call the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first.’ 9 When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received the usual daily wage.**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 20:1-16&version=NRSVCE#fen-NRSVCE-28072b”)]

10 Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage.c] 11 And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’

13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?d] 14 Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’e] 16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”f]

Do you see a connection to what you are saying?

As Christians, should we say we will only work the last hour; because if one is saved in the last hour, there is no necessity for us to do more ?

I’m still struggling with whether or not private confession to a Priest is necessary for salvation. I don’t want to refuse to do what is necessary for salvation. So, this is an important discussion for me.

Peace and blessings,

Anna

 

[EvangelCatholic]

In my worship experiences among both Roman Catholics and Anglicans/Episcopalians, I have noticed that the words of absolution are different than in a Lutheran Mass. At public confession, the Lutheran pastor acts in ‘persona Christi’ and absolves all who have confessed their sins in the name of the Trinity and blesses the congregation with the sign of the holy cross. In Roman and Anglican churches, the words of assurance are spoken instead of absolution.

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Confession is mandatory…private confession is not.:

And it misses the point of sin and sinfulness which the point is well established. No need for more examples.

Sure Gary if that is how you are choosing to see it. I have stated otherwise but I guess it doesn’t matter. :

Yet thats your proposition. You proposal assumes you are forgiven for what you didn’t confess because you forgot, and suggest to me God would know and forgive. So this is what you suggest, so my question which you the crickets are still chirping on is why bother at all…“God Knows”?

Private confession is useless!..would that help you out in your argument more if I stated that? :

My argument is well established. Your frustration is in the drivers seat.

I do not know what you keep trying to get out. I believe in private confession as does every other Episcopalian. Is that not getting across? If so I am sorry. I thought I have stated that many times. :

You believe that, but you do not know what everyone else believes, but we do know whats taught…not mandatory. And if by chance you die with moral sin from forgotten confession, God will know and we could place our eggs in His basket. “Saved”.

And if everyone believed this is so important you would think it would be mandatory. I guess the Catholic Church model would be preferred. Why not “exactly”?

 

[aidanbradypop]

My argument is well established. Your frustration is in the drivers seat.

I am not frustrated in the least.

You believe that, but you do not know what everyone else believes, but we do know whats taught…not mandatory. And if by chance you die with moral sin from forgotten confession, God will know and we could place our eggs in His basket. “Saved”.

And if everyone believed this is so important you would think it would be mandatory. I guess the Catholic Church model would be preferred. Why not “exactly”?

Your tradition teaches private confession is mandatory and my tradition does not.

 

[Kliska]

Matthew- While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Fallible?

I’m sorry, but I see no connection here with the topic at hand.

Kliska,

IMHO, this is one of the most dangerous teachings to come out of Reformation theology. Usually, the salvation of the thief on the cross is used to try to justify that nothing apart from “faith” is necessary for salvation.

Well, don’t pare it down too far; salvation is by grace through faith, and that faith has to have a proper object; Jesus and all that implies.

You are basically saying that if one person (through no fault of their own, as the thief on the Cross) is saved without doing what was commanded by Christ and taught by the Apostles; then the rest of us get a free pass.

Quite the contrary, what I’m seeing in scripture is that God is no respecter of persons. If an individual can indeed have their sins washed without baptism that tells me there is something efficacious going on through their faith, no the water itself.

Think about what this line of thinking really means: no one would have any need to participate in the Lord’s Supper; no one would need to be Baptized; no one would need to spread the Gospel; no one would need to help the poor, feed the hungry; or give of ourselves in any way–all because one person obtained salvation without doing any of these things.

If we are able to do what the New Testament reveals as necessary, then it is necessary.

What is called for doesn’t always mean “necessary.” As you rightly phrased it “if we are able.” Should we partake in communion, yes. Should we get baptized, yes. Etc… but that is an outflowing of faith, and for those that are capable of doing so.

If we are able to be Baptized, then it is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. If this is not true then Peter mislead thousands of people: “Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2:38

This passage doesn’t negate what I’m saying. Baptism is an outflow of saving faith, that is done in accord with faith. If we search scripture to find where salvation is outlined there are multiple scriptures that don’t include baptism. The idea behind repentance here is a mind change toward God. That mindchange taps into grace, and baptism follows. It is the faith that precedes actions that is salvific, then it is accompanied by an action.

If we are able to partake of The Lord’s Supper/Holy Eucharist to be raised on the last day to eternal life, then it is necessary. If this is not true, then Jesus mislead the Jews when he said, "54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; John 6:54

In many commentaries, even in some RC commentaries I’ve read/heard, John 6 should not be connected to the Eucharist. Jesus is speaking metaphorically about faithing on Him and His words. Just as Paul uses metaphors such as milk and meat. And John sets up the metaphors in the gospel; Vine, Door, etc…

Do you see a connection to what you are saying?

No, not really. (I don’t mean that meanly, I just don’t really see the overlap)

As Christians, should we say we will only work the last hour; because if one is saved in the last hour, there is no necessity for us to do more ?

I’ve never heard this verse applied this way, but I have heard it given by people who think that if they delay their baptism til the last minute before death they would be better off than doing it right after they faithe on Jesus, because then all their sin is wiped out.

Teachings can be abused by each side on these issues.

I’m still struggling with whether or not private confession to a Priest is necessary for salvation. I don’t want to refuse to do what is necessary for salvation. So, this is an important discussion for me.

Peace and blessings,

Anna

I totally understand, and I hope I’m adding to the discussion. It’s my understanding that even in the strictest interpretation, the priest isn’t actually the one doing the forgiving, and is pronouncing something already forgiven. In my belief we are saved by grace through faith, and that faith is directed at the totality of the necessary and sufficiency of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. When He announced “it is finished” we can have faith in that.

This is not the belief of those, such as the RCC, that teaches you must go to a certain person, another human set apart from the laity, to pronounce you forgiven and that you HAVE to do that. I don’t see that in the preaching and teaching of the gospel. What would someone like the Ethiopian who converted after talking to Philip do if he returned to Ethiopia and there were no priests? Further, Philip never mentions a sacrament of reconciliation. I believe that Ethiopian was saved, and also equipped to share the gospel which is pointing at Christ for forgiveness of sin.

This is obviously not the majority view as we are on a Roman Catholic messageboard, and I respect that without agreeing with it.

Grace and Peace to you!

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .Yet thats your proposition. You proposal assumes you are forgiven for what you didn’t confess because you forgot, and suggest to me God would know and forgive. So this is what you suggest, so my question which you the crickets are still chirping on is why bother at all…“God Knows”?

See Catholic Answers-Ask An Apologist:

Dear friend,

You are beginning to scruple. When we go to Confession, so long as we don’t deliberately conceal any sins, all our sins are forgiven, including the ones we have forgotten. At this point, it would be better for you to not go back over the past.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P

I’m confused about why you are hammering aidanbradypop over forgotten sins?

Anna

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m confused about why you are hammering aidanbradypop over forgotten sins?

Anna

I never bought that up he did.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I never bought that up he did.

Well, this is a discussion about confession, and Fr. Vincent Serpa is basically saying the same thing about forgiveness of forgotten sins as aidanbradypop.

So, how do you reconcile this post with Catholic teaching? It’s very confusing-at least to me.

. . . .Yet thats your proposition. You proposal assumes you are forgiven for what you didn’t confess because you forgot, and suggest to me God would know and forgive. So this is what you suggest, so my question which you the crickets are still chirping on is why bother at all…“God Knows”? . . . .

What are you saying here?
Anna

 

[AbideWithMe]

But if we confess our sins to one another and the one you confessed to retains the sin, then what?

Gary and others–I have a real question. What happens if a priest retains a sin? Can a priest ever err in doing that? Is it Catholic belief that God will supernaturally prevent any priest in the world from mistakenly retaining anyone’s sin?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary and others–I have a real question. What happens if a priest retains a sin? Can a priest ever err in doing that? Is it Catholic belief that God will supernaturally prevent any priest in the world from mistakenly retaining anyone’s sin?

Excommunication in effect is what it is, its Biblical with bind and loose . Sure they can error. I can’t think of any incident off my head.