forgiveness of sins

[Anna_Scott]

Thanks for the link, Anna. Seems like a gradual development and I would agree with your summation that it is a result of the struggle between Catholic and Reformation ideas. The question is, what does one do with this now? It seems that either it is a sacrament, instituted by Christ for our salvation or it is not. Either way, a question that should be answered. As a Catholic, it is a question upon which our salvation may very well depend.

Blessings.

Steve

Steve,
I really can’t disagree with your conclusions here. As you know, Anglicanism is all over the place these days. Many have departed so far from the Apostolic Faith, it is hardly recognizable.

You are right in saying, " either it is a sacrament, instituted by Christ for our salvation or it is not."

Considering the diversity in beliefs among those of us participating on this thread; I would say we are dealing with three questions:

1. Was the Sacrament of Reconciliation instituted by Christ? IOW, Did Jesus give the Disciples the authority to forgive sins?
2. Is this Sacrament necessary for salvation?
3. If we repent in prayer and confess our sins corporately; is the Priest’s corporate prayer of Absolution enough for our salvation? That is the question I am personally pondering. So, I’m reading each post carefully I acknowledge and understand the many benefits of private confession-as noted in previous posts…

I keep pressing Kliska to answer the question: Did Jesus give the Disciples the authority to forgive sins? I don’t think we can move forward without an answer to that question.

I always gain so much in these discussions.

Peace and Blessings,

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . Yes. That’s what I discuss above, further, from my perspective that I glean from scripture it isn’t limited to them at a fixed point in time and isn’t about a necessary sacrament of private confession to a separate ministerial priest that stands in for God.

Kliska,

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying, “Yes,” Jesus gave the disciples the authority to forgive or retain sins, and this authority was given to all Christians. Is that right?

Thanks,
Anna

 

[Kliska]

Kliska,

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying, “Yes,” Jesus gave the disciples the authority to forgive or retain sins, and this authority was given to all Christians. Is that right?

Thanks,
Anna

If we understand that it isn’t about a ministerial priesthood, then yes, but only eventually (Pentecost had to happen), in the same way that it was first focused on Peter for an example, then expanded to the rest. The problem is that this passage is paired with others that are used to either support a ministerial priesthood with sacraments, or paired with those that don’t. Obviously, a protestant such as me doesn’t believe that the retaining and forgiving of sin is connected to a ministerial priesthood who are categorically apart from other believers. That then changes the implication.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If we understand that it isn’t about a ministerial priesthood, then yes, but only eventually (Pentecost had to happen), in the same way that it was first focused on Peter for an example, then expanded to the rest. The problem is that this passage is paired with others that are used to either support a ministerial priesthood with sacraments, or paired with those that don’t. Obviously, a protestant such as me doesn’t believe that the retaining and forgiving of sin is connected to a ministerial priesthood who are categorically apart from other believers. That then changes the implication.

I kinda follow what your saying, yet there’s a part which it leads to which troubles me. Not the forgiveness of sins, but the retaining. Can you give an example of this part, for if I’m to understand this, then we are talking about individuals retaining sin which in effect leads the one who’s sin is retained to eternal damnation. But who is to make this overall judgment on this one to one basis, which would be the one who has this power to bind and loose.

In other words lets for example say I commit a grave transgression, who is to forgive this from your understanding and by what understanding is the matter of grave understood and then the actual repentance and contrition? And by what knowledge are they worthy to determine the transgression/psychological state in relation to biblical understanding? Those who I transgressed against may not have even graduated high school let alone read the Bible or are Christian.

So I wrong someone and really am sorry and seek forgiveness, who is my forgiveness contingent on, those who I wronged, who I now become subject to, with their forgiveness pending on their emotional state in which my transgression fueled?

I must be missing an important point?

 

[GaryTaylor]

You are right in saying, " either it is a sacrament, instituted by Christ for our salvation or it is not."

Considering the diversity in beliefs among those of us participating on this thread; I would say we are dealing with three questions:

1. Was the Sacrament of Reconciliation instituted by Christ? IOW, Did Jesus give the Disciples the authority to forgive sins?
2. Is this Sacrament necessary for salvation?
3. If we repent in prayer and confess our sins corporately; is the Priest’s corporate prayer of Absolution enough for our salvation? That is the question I am personally pondering. So, I’m reading each post carefully I acknowledge and understand the many benefits of private confession-as noted in previous posts

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.

2] How does absolution/reconciliation compare to the sacrament of baptism? If we are to say that Baptism for the remission of sin is an absolute, then why wouldn’t we acknowledge the same thinking with reconciliation? Necessary becomes contingent on the individuals state post baptism. So the question then becomes for example can I commit a grave sin and receive community forgiveness without personal confession, or can I make a personal confession of my own between the Lord and myself? This leads to one of two alternatives which are martyrdom or baptism of desire. This is contingent on perfect contrition thus pure love of the Lord, however these are final acts. For to understand this state prior would implicitly include a desire and intention to receive Baptism, thus either intentional error or ignorance. Add to this, one who received the Sacrament already. Then again, still they are either in intentional error or ignorance. I would say in fact this is indeed necessary for all, however one fits into the above. So then absolution and forgiveness are one of the same.

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.”

Here’s the thinking on forgiveness of sin.

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur88.htm

This here…“He breathed upon them and said, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained’”

The power to pronounce the good news and we all have this power as discribed? That I can’t wrap my mind around. I’m trying though.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I didn’t mean anything personal, Dustin. I was just responding to the “saying”. It seemed to me to be saying that it doesn’t really matter if you confess or not. In fact, I disagree with every aspect of it: “All may. Some should. None must.”. . . .

We ALL must confess our sins whether we are Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian or Catholic. Like many of the Creedal Churches, we believe private confession to be very helpful to the soul of the individual but not the only means of forgiving sins.

It infers that some do not need to confess at all, but in the end it doesn’t matter because no one must.

It only speaks about private confession. We all must confess our sins.

The difference is that there is no equivocation in the Catholic Church. You are absolutely correct that there are Catholics who have not been to confession in years. And they are in serious violation of Church teaching. Those who have not been for years, or ever, within the Episcopalian communion are in violation of nothing. We are required to confess our sins at least once a year and to confess serious (mortal) sin as soon as possible after it has been committed. So its not the same on both sides of the Tiber.

The need to confess is the same on either side of the Tiber. Episcopalians confess every Sunday before the Eucharist. Private confession is not seen as a “must” but one must confess the sins. The general confession is for that and sometimes in extreme cases one can confess to God directly.

I’m speaking of open communion in the Episcopal communion regardless of one’s belief. And I do not measure any faith tradition by the members who do not adhere to its doctrines and teachings. I’m talking about official Episcopalian positions, not the bad children.

All Baptized Christians are welcome to Holy Eucharist in TEC. Being baptized makes one a member of the Christian community. That is good enough for us.

Dustin, its just another aspect of the Apostolic faith that has been watered down in order to appeal to more to the masses. And this is not just the Anglican/Episcopal communion but all of those who find their origin in the “reformation” to one degree or another. Confession is nice, but not necessary. One can believe in the real presence or not, and still receive, regardless. The sacrament of Holy Orders has been turned on its head under the guise of being all-inclusive, tolerant and compassionate, while disregarding the teaching of the Church from which they divided. Even the sacrament of Baptism has lost its real meaning in many non-Catholic faith traditions and has become a personal proclamation of faith rather than a life-giving, regenerative, necessary source of God’s grace. It is a trend going in the direction of making it up as we go along and it is dangerous.

I would agree with most of what you said. Methodistism branched from Anglicanism and it is simply a more Protestant version of Anglicanism. TEC does not say confession is not necessary. Private confession is not always necessary, yet we must always confess our sins in order to be forgiven. I was even taught that as a Baptist long ago.

Do not get me wrong. Both the Lutheran and Anglican traditions have retained much of the original Church. In that we can rejoice together. But where they vary is important as well and shouldn’t be ignored.

I suggest we pray for one another and ask Christ to continue to bless us.

Peace, brother.

Steve

The peace and love of Christ be always with you brother!

 

[aidanbradypop]

Steve,
I really can’t disagree with your conclusions here. As you know, Anglicanism is all over the place these days. Many have departed so far from the Apostolic Faith, it is hardly recognizable.

You are right in saying, " either it is a sacrament, instituted by Christ for our salvation or it is not."

Considering the diversity in beliefs among those of us participating on this thread; I would say we are dealing with three questions:

1. Was the Sacrament of Reconciliation instituted by Christ? IOW, Did Jesus give the Disciples the authority to forgive sins?
2. Is this Sacrament necessary for salvation?
3. If we repent in prayer and confess our sins corporately; is the Priest’s corporate prayer of Absolution enough for our salvation? That is the question I am personally pondering. So, I’m reading each post carefully I acknowledge and understand the many benefits of private confession-as noted in previous posts…

I keep pressing Kliska to answer the question: Did Jesus give the Disciples the authority to forgive sins? I don’t think we can move forward without an answer to that question.

I always gain so much in these discussions.

Peace and Blessings,

Anna

Many Anglicans view it as a Sacrament. Some view it as a Sacramental Rite will others simply view it as something we must do.

Many Episcopalians I know personally believe that it is an extention of our Baptism. We were baptized once and each time we confess our sins, we are renewing our baptism. I hope this helps a little rather than making the water more muddy. lol

 

[SteveVH]

Many Anglicans view it as a Sacrament. Some view it as a Sacramental Rite will others simply view it as something we must do.

Many Episcopalians I know personally believe that it is an extention of our Baptism. We were baptized once and each time we confess our sins, we are renewing our baptism. I hope this helps a little rather than making the water more muddy. lol

Dustin, this is exactly the problem, as far as I can see. The Church is not a democracy. We do not arrive at dogmas and doctrines by polling the faithful to see what they believe. The faithful are to conform their lives to the Church, rather than the Church conforming its teachings to the faithful based upon what they want to believe.

And this is exactly why I made the comment that the saying “All may, none must, some should” is nothing more than a placation of the people. It is like a doctor prescribing a medicine necessary to save one’s life and the family members deciding that the prescribed medicine is optional. Regardless of how much they believe it is optional, the person not receiving the medicine is still going to die. Jesus gave the prescription. We cannot reject it simply because we don’t like the taste and hope to live.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Dustin, this is exactly the problem, as far as I can see. The Church is not a democracy. We do not arrive at dogmas and doctrines by polling the faithful to see what they believe. The faithful are to conform their lives to the Church, rather than the Church conforming its teachings to the faithful based upon what they want to believe.

And this is exactly why I made the comment that the saying “All may, none must, some should” is nothing more than a placation of the people. It is like a doctor prescribing a medicine necessary to save one’s life and the family members deciding that the prescribed medicine is optional. Regardless of how much they believe it is optional, the person not receiving the medicine is still going to die. Jesus gave the prescription. We cannot reject it simply because we don’t like the taste and hope to live.

I am not stating, or has any other Episcopalian, that we should allow our sins to go unconfessed. We do confess our sins daily and on Sunday. Your Tradition tells you that you must go to a priest in a private confession in order to be forgiven of a mortal sin and my Tradition does it in the general confession. That saying about “All or not required, many should, some must” is simply a saying that people use. Is it a good one? Probably not. It is kind of like the saying “TEC is Catholicism with less guilt.” Neither one really serves the soul of the individual.

We should ALWAYS confess our sins. Your Tradition requires private confession and mine Tradition does not. We confess our sins to the priest or bishop. We also, just like Catholics, can go straight to God if a priest is not around. The only difference is private or general.

 

[Kliska]

I kinda follow what your saying, yet there’s a part which it leads to which troubles me. Not the forgiveness of sins, but the retaining. Can you give an example of this part, for if I’m to understand this, then we are talking about individuals retaining sin which in effect leads the one who’s sin is retained to eternal damnation. But who is to make this overall judgment on this one to one basis, which would be the one who has this power to bind and loose.

In other words lets for example say I commit a grave transgression, who is to forgive this from your understanding and by what understanding is the matter of grave understood and then the actual repentance and contrition? And by what knowledge are they worthy to determine the transgression/psychological state in relation to biblical understanding? Those who I transgressed against may not have even graduated high school let alone read the Bible or are Christian.

So I wrong someone and really am sorry and seek forgiveness, who is my forgiveness contingent on, those who I wronged, who I now become subject to, with their forgiveness pending on their emotional state in which my transgression fueled?

I must be missing an important point?

This is where my view intersects with other scripture; for example in Hebrews we read:

Hebrews 10:26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has **trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
**
This may be a harsh way to put it, but once someone has the gospel rightly laid out before them, they are, in effect locked into their sin unless they turn to God. The very evangelist that brings the good news is taking away the Old Covenant right to sacrifice an animal to cover their sin. In effect, once the new covenant is known and was put into place, even for the Jews there remains no sacrifice for sin after that point. From my view then there is a powerful change when the gospel is presented, and the same word brings life to some and death to others.

To use a little more Catholic terminology, it removes invincible ignorance because the person has received the knowledge of truth and only by faithing on Jesus can they now be forgiven. So, if they do not, their sins are retained, and we can tell them that.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is where my view intersects with other scripture; for example in Hebrews we read:

Hebrews 10:26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has **trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
**
This may be a harsh way to put it, but once someone has the gospel rightly laid out before them, they are, in effect locked into their sin unless they turn to God. The very evangelist that brings the good news is taking away the Old Covenant right to sacrifice an animal to cover their sin. In effect, once the new covenant is known and was put into place, even for the Jews there remains no sacrifice for sin after that point. From my view then there is a powerful change when the gospel is presented, and the same word brings life to some and death to others.

To use a little more Catholic terminology, it removes invincible ignorance because the person has received the knowledge of truth and only by faithing on Jesus can they now be forgiven. So, if they do not, their sins are retained, and we can tell them that.

OK, so the forgiveness isn’t required by the victim transgressed against where its not possible, but the forgiveness is required through the elimination of ignorance by knowledge, is this through the congregation or through prayer to the Lord?

This is what I’m saying above about sin and sinfulness. The actual sin forgiven, while forgiven, may do little in regard to the on-going sinfulness in a specific area dues to vice, habit. Yet too the individual may well understand the need and desire to repent and this may well be one step forward and another back just as with any relapse.

 

[GaryTaylor]

IThe only difference is private or general.

So in general, means, by a community prayer which is a private interior confession resolved by the community prayer, thus the priest, who knows nothing of the individuals issues. The problem of sin in a specific area is after the fact. So the issue which exists before the fact isn’t resolved and is left to the individual in their possible ignorance?

I believe we would have to admit here if one is ignorant of the underlying existing issue, then why would they not be ignorant of the means to resolve this? So how does one who is ignorant break this cycle.

Isn’t mandatory confession in place to help the ignorant become knowledgeable among other things?

 

[Kliska]

OK, so the forgiveness isn’t required by the victim transgressed against where its not possible, but the forgiveness is required through the elimination of ignorance by knowledge, is this through the congregation or through prayer to the Lord?

This is what I’m saying above about sin and sinfulness. The actual sin forgiven, while forgiven, may do little in regard to the on-going sinfulness in a specific area dues to vice, habit. Yet too the individual may well understand the need and desire to repent and this may well be one step forward and another back just as with any relapse.

I hate to branch out the conversation further, but from my protestant perspective this is where it boils down to salvation and sanctification. The initial act of accepting the gospel and faithing on Christ is how we believe the “blood is applied” for forgiveness of sin. Then comes the indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit. Then comes lifelong sanctification, which would be that struggle with ongoing bad behaviour/thoughts etc…

I believe that the salvation experience is salvific by grace through faith, therefore the faith must be in the individual toward God, with no actual need to confess sin to a priest or to a congregation. Now, I firmly believe that sanctification is helped by confessing sin one to another, with the understanding that the pronouncing of “absolution” or forgiveness is only underscoring the forgiveness already obtained in the act of salvation/faithing on Jesus.

Confession then becomes a help to the person in many ways; Spiritual guidance and support, easing of conscience, a reminder of what the struggle is about, and why we should struggle in the first place, to be reminded of the good news of the gospel, etc…

 

[aidanbradypop]

So in general, means, by a community prayer which is a private interior confession resolved by the community prayer, thus the priest, who knows nothing of the individuals issues. The problem of sin in a specific area is after the fact. So the issue which exists before the fact isn’t resolved and is left to the individual in their possible ignorance?

Our general confession is much like the RC general confession. If one keeps repeating a certain sin over and over then private confession is probably needed. Allow me to try to explain it like this…I get prayer request all day long. At night when I say my prayers before I sleep, I try to remember all those who asked for prayers. I say them name by name and also pray for all the request I had that day. Does God only hear the ones that I stated by name?

Often I hear…“how can a priest forgive you of a sin that he/she does not know about?”

Simple. We ask God to forgive us of ALL our sins and through the priest we hear the forgiveness.

In a perfect world, people will reflect on those sins and try to from doing those sins again. I am happy that I have Christ for when I fail to completely repent and walk away.

I believe we would have to admit here if one is ignorant of the underlying existing issue, then why would they not be ignorant of the means to resolve this? So how does one who is ignorant break this cycle.

I cannot speak for any individuals so I will simply speak for myself. I sin probably every minute of the day. When I have issues with a certain sin, I seek the advice of a priest to help me overcome such trials as well as seeking God in prayer and meditation. None of use are perfect, hence the need to repent over and over, so thankfully we have confession of sins.

Isn’t mandatory confession in place to help the ignorant become knowledgeable among other things?

Indeed. Confession only works if the sinner is willing to confess and do a moral inventory of their life.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I hate to branch out the conversation further, but from my protestant perspective this is where it boils down to salvation and sanctification. The initial act of accepting the gospel and faithing on Christ is how we believe the “blood is applied” for forgiveness of sin. Then comes the indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit. Then comes lifelong sanctification, which would be that struggle with ongoing bad behaviour/thoughts etc…

I believe that the salvation experience is salvific by grace through faith, therefore the faith must be in the individual toward God, with no actual need to confess sin to a priest or to a congregation. Now, I firmly believe that sanctification is helped by confessing sin one to another, with the understanding that the pronouncing of “absolution” or forgiveness is only underscoring the forgiveness already obtained in the act of salvation/faithing on Jesus.

Confession then becomes a help to the person in many ways; Spiritual guidance and support, easing of conscience, a reminder of what the struggle is about, and why we should struggle in the first place, to be reminded of the good news of the gospel, etc…

In accepting the gospel no Sacrament of Trinitarian Baptism is required? So what purpose is baptism, is it not to be born again by water and the Holy Spirit, as Jesus explained (John 3:5).

“Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.”

 

[SteveVH]

We ALL must confess our sins whether we are Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian or Catholic. Like many of the Creedal Churches, we believe private confession to be very helpful to the soul of the individual but not the only means of forgiving sins.

Nor do we believe that private confession is “the only means” of forgiving sins. As has been said before, God will forgive who he chooses to forgive. But Christ gave the Apostles the authority to forgive or retain sins for a reason. How can a priest retain those sins of which he is unaware? In fact, Christ established the “ministry of reconciliation”:

“18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:” (2 Cor. 5:18)

So while one may receive forgiveness in other ways, to determine that the “ministry of reconciliation” is nice, but not necessary as the normal means of reconciliation, flies in the face of Christ’s own actions. And those who choose to put their own spin on this under the assumption that God will somehow find a way, when they flatly reject the means he has provided through his Church, are making a huge assumption based on nothing more than their own judgment. All I can say is “good luck with that”.

It only speaks about private confession. We all must confess our sins.

And what of those who, during a “corporate confession”, are distracted and are thinking about what to prepare for dinner that evening? Are they forgiven? Does one examine their conscience before a “corporate confession”, bringing to mind all of the sins they can remember? The answer is no. This is not a matter of a waive of the hand by a minister. It is a matter of a persons own private sins and whether or not one feels true sorrow for their sins. It is a matter of authentically reconciling with our beloved.

This is very much akin to a marriage. It is one thing to offend one’s spouse and give a rather impersonal apology. It is quite another to really think about how much one has hurt their spouse, to approach them, look into their eyes and fully admit to the specific offense, express authentic sorrow and a desire to repair the damage it caused to the relationship. To say “I’m sorry for anything I’ve done to offend you” is quite different than saying “I’m sorry that I embarrassed you in front of our friends last night at the Christmas party. I never want to hurt you again like that. Please forgive me.” A lukewarm, general apology will result in a lukewarm, general response. The second way will result in falling into each other’s arms and maybe shedding some tears together. That is the reconciliation that occurs in the sacrament. We fall into God’s arms once again and shed tears of both sorrow and joy, together.

The need to confess is the same on either side of the Tiber. Episcopalians confess every Sunday before the Eucharist. Private confession is not seen as a “must” but one must confess the sins. The general confession is for that and sometimes in extreme cases one can confess to God directly.

All Baptized Christians are welcome to Holy Eucharist in TEC. Being baptized makes one a member of the Christian community. That is good enough for us.

I rest my case. It doesn’t matter what we think is “good enough for us”. What matters is what Christ did and what he intended for his flock. Paul warned that those who partake and do not recognize the body and blood of the Lord bring condemnation upon themselves. Why would we want to facilitate the bringing of condemnation upon anyone? That is the reason that the Catholic Church will not allow just anyone, regardless of their belief, to receive. They must first be taught and confess that Christ is truly present before receiving.

I suggest we pray for one another and ask Christ to continue to bless us.

Amen!

 

[aidanbradypop]

Nor do we believe that private confession is “the only means” of forgiving sins. As has been said before, God will forgive who he chooses to forgive. But Christ gave the Apostles the authority to forgive or retain sins for a reason. How can a priest retain those sins of which he is unaware? In fact, Christ established the “ministry of reconciliation”:

"18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:" (2 Cor. 5:18)

Preaching to the choir here Steve.

So while one may receive forgiveness in other ways, to determine that the “ministry of reconciliation” is nice, but not necessary as the normal means of reconciliation, flies in the face of Christ’s own actions. And those who choose to put their own spin on this under the assumption that God will somehow find a way, when they flatly reject the means he has provided through his Church, are making a huge assumption based on nothing more than their own judgment. All I can say is “good luck with that”.

I, nor any faithful Episcopalian, would disagree with you here. We do not say it is not necessary. All sin must be repented.

And what of those who, during a “corporate confession”, are distracted and are thinking about what to prepare for dinner that evening? Are they forgiven? Does one examine their conscience before a “corporate confession”, bringing to mind all of the sins they can remember? The answer is no. This is not a matter of a waive of the hand by a minister. It is a matter of a persons own private sins and whether or not one feels true sorrow for their sins. It is a matter of authentically reconciling with our beloved.

I cannot answer this. It would not be charitable for me to judge whether someone is truly sorry for their sins and wishes to repent. That is between the sinner and God.

This is very much akin to a marriage. It is one thing to offend one’s spouse and give a rather impersonal apology. It is quite another to really think about how much one has hurt their spouse, to approach them, look into their eyes and fully admit to the specific offense, express authentic sorrow and a desire to repair the damage it caused to the relationship. To say “I’m sorry for anything I’ve done to offend you” is quite different than saying “I’m sorry that I embarrassed you in front of our friends last night at the Christmas party. I never want to hurt you again like that. Please forgive me.” A lukewarm, general apology will result in a lukewarm, general response. The second way will result in falling into each other’s arms and maybe shedding some tears together. That is the reconciliation that occurs in the sacrament. We fall into God’s arms once again and shed tears of both sorrow and joy, together.

And so what happens if you give a very heartful and warm apology and then do it once more. Were you not really sorry to begin with or simply human and makes mistakes?

I rest my case. It doesn’t matter what we think is “good enough for us”. What matters is what Christ did and what he intended for his flock. Paul warned that those who partake and do not recognize the body and blood of the Lord bring condemnation upon themselves. Why would we want to facilitate the bringing of condemnation upon anyone? That is the reason that the Catholic Church will not allow just anyone, regardless of their belief, to receive. They must first be taught and confess that Christ is truly present before receiving.

And that person eats and drinks the condemnation upong themselves. TEC does not do that. Everyone is allowed to remain in the pew if they decide to do so. No one is pulling them to the altar to eat and drink. They make the conscience decision to do so. I respect the closed communion of the CC. Respecting the practice does not mean I have to agree or disagree with it. The Catholic Church does not “allow just anyone” but how many times does the priest deny Holy Eucharist to a “holiday Catholic?” It is a stain on the individual and not the Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If one keeps repeating a certain sin over and over then private confession is probably needed…

And being sinners who must not sin seems to be the natural resolve would be the private confession. I can’t see how one resolves anything when all they know confirms error. Its about the same as saying a barbarian could stop being a barbarian on their own.

Does God only hear the ones that I stated by name? .

I don’t take the liberty to assume what God knows.

Often I hear…“how can a priest forgive you of a sin that he/she does not know about?”.

Great question

Simple. We ask God to forgive us of ALL our sins and through the priest we hear the forgiveness. .

And the barbarian continues to be barbarian?

In a perfect world, people will reflect on those sins and try to from doing those sins again. I am happy that I have Christ for when I fail to completely repent and walk away. .

Did Christ resolve the barbarian issue? Better yet what about the example of AA mentioned. Was a tool not placed in between for an individual to help by personal support of a particular issue, thus achieve perfect contrition? You don’t see this contradiction?

I cannot speak for any individuals so I will simply speak for myself…

Ah, but the priest can speak for all of you?

I sin probably every minute of the day. When I have issues with a certain sin, I seek the advice of a priest to help me overcome such trials as well as seeking God in prayer and meditation. None of use are perfect, hence the need to repent over and over, so thankfully we have confession of sins…

Amen, I would suggest in this very real world of sinners we should all follow that path and be held responsible to do so? If not than why not?

Indeed. Confession only works if the sinner is willing to confess and do a moral inventory of their life.

Just like AA, and of course “all” alcoholics “should” attend. Buts lets see how they fare on their own a few decades? Seek self help when its actually understood you are killing yourself thus your denial is removed by yourself. How likely is that?

 

[Kliska]

In accepting the gospel no Sacrament of Trinitarian Baptism is required? So what purpose is baptism, is it not to be born again by water and the Holy Spirit, as Jesus explained (John 3:5).

“Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.”

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

 

[aidanbradypop]

And being sinners who must not sin seems to be the natural resolve would be the private confession. I can’t see how one resolves anything when all they know confirms error. Its about the same as saying a barbarian could stop being a barbarian on their own.

Private confession with a priest is not a necessary prepapration for recieving the Sacrament. In the Episcopal service a common general confession is included in the liturgy. Persons preparing for Communion are urged to meditate, pray, and practice private spiritual examination. If there are individual oubts or scruples, then the Sacrament of Reconciliation is available to all. But it is not a necessary prerequisite to receiving Holy Commmunion but confession of sins is.

I don’t take the liberty to assume what God knows.

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

Great question

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.?

And the barbarian continues to be barbarian?

That is completely up to the barbarian and God.

Did Christ resolve the barbarian issue? Better yet what about the example of AA mentioned. Was a tool not placed in between for an individual to help by personal support of a particular issue, thus achieve perfect contrition? You don’t see this contradiction?

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.

Ah, but the priest can speak for all of you?

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

Amen, I would suggest in this very real world of sinners we should all follow that path and be held responsible to do so? If not than why not?

I do not disagree with you here.

Just like AA, and of course “all” alcoholics “should” attend. Buts lets see how they fare on their own a few decades? Seek self help when its actually understood you are killing yourself thus your denial is removed by yourself. How likely is that?

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.