forgiveness of sins

[aidanbradypop]

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?

I have never heard of a priest not forgiving a sin.

Doesnt mean that is has never happened…just never heard it myself.

Example: I forgive sins A, B, C, and E but not D. Not sure it would work like that.

Could be wrong.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

Is he? I was under the impression we were discussing general confession of the mind?

catholicexchange.com/forgotten-mortal-sins

If we happen to recall an un confessed mortal sin, we are called to confess it. As the Code of Canon Law provides:

The faithful are bound to confess, in kind and in number, all grave sins committed after baptism, of which after careful examination of conscience they are aware, which have not yet been directly pardoned by the keys of the Church, and which have not been confessed in an individual confession (canon 988 §1).

“Must we confess grievous sins forgotten in a preceding confession? We must confess grave sins forgotten in a preceding confession because, according to divine law, every known mortal sin committed after baptism must be ‘submitted to the keys’ [cf. Matthew 16:18-19; 18:15-18], that is personally acknowledged in the sacrament of penance (no. 1373, p. 273)” Father Hardin

 

[GaryTaylor]

Could be wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

 

[aidanbradypop]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

Thanks friend.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

Communion through reconciliation is intimately connected. I can understand though as your seeing this differently.

 

[AbideWithMe]

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.

Thanks, Gary.

Please (anyone) tell me if I’m understanding this correctly. Is it right to say a Catholic priest may withhold absolution from a confessor for some reason? Here is a scenario for example: A man confesses to horribly abusing his wife while drunk; the priest knows this man’s history, and the priest has every reason to believe he’s seeing crocodile tears with not a smidgen of intent to repent and turn from the sin. So, the priest, theoretically, may decide to not pronounce the words of absolution? Yes? No? If yes, and that were to happen, is it Catholic belief that God also does not forgive the sin of abuse? If so, and the man gets in a car accident on the way home and dies, he’s died in mortal sin, correct?

If the above is more or less correct, what about if the man really did have at least some tiny seed of repentance in him this time, although the priest was not being unreasonable in his own judgment. The man is far from having perfect contrition, but he does have at least some very imperfect contrition. Would God override the judgment of the priest and actually forgive the man?

 

[SteveVH]

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

Wow. Great post, Anna.

 

[SteveVH]

Thanks, Gary.

Please (anyone) tell me if I’m understanding this correctly. Is it right to say a Catholic priest may withhold absolution from a confessor for some reason? Here is a scenario for example: A man confesses to horribly abusing his wife while drunk; the priest knows this man’s history, and the priest has every reason to believe he’s seeing crocodile tears with not a smidgen of intent to repent and turn from the sin. So, the priest, theoretically, may decide to not pronounce the words of absolution? Yes? No? If yes, and that were to happen, is it Catholic belief that God also does not forgive the sin of abuse? If so, and the man gets in a car accident on the way home and dies, he’s died in mortal sin, correct?

If the above is more or less correct, what about if the man really did have at least some tiny seed of repentance in him this time, although the priest was not being unreasonable in his own judgment. The man is far from having perfect contrition, but he does have at least some very imperfect contrition. Would God override the judgment of the priest and actually forgive the man?

The priest is not there to judge the sincerity of the person confessing. An example of an instance in which a priest might refuse absolution would be a case such as a person living with another outside of the bonds of marriage. Unfortunately, it is quite common in our world today. So if one in this situation comes to confess this sin, but has no intention of changing their behavior, a priest is very justified in refusing absolution. We must express a desire (in the act of contrition) to stop the sinful behavior and even to avoid being tempted. We must have true contrition for our sins. It doesn’t do one a lot of good to reconcile with another and then go right on committing the very offense which caused separation in that relationship to begin with.

 

[ltwin]

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

The person doing the confessing is not at the mercy of the person hearing the confession. The person hearing the confession can pronounce the Gospel message “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

When it comes to evangelical churches, the ministry of reconciliation often takes place at the altar where James 5:16 is put into practice as we pray for one another.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The person doing the confessing is not at the mercy of the person hearing the confession. The person hearing the confession can pronounce the Gospel message “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

When it comes to evangelical churches, the ministry of reconciliation often takes place at the altar where James 5:16 is put into practice as we pray for one another.

Hey Itwin, I follow what your saying, what I don’t understand is how the retaining aspect works in this aspect.

 

[ltwin]

Hey Itwin, I follow what your saying, what I don’t understand is how the retaining aspect works in this aspect.

If I correctly follow what Kliska is saying (a point which I’m for the most part in agreement with) is that binding/losing, forgiving/retaining is connected to the proclamation of the gospel. Those that have faith in Christ and repent of their sin are forgiven of their sins. Those that do not are not forgiven.

So, as an evangelical, if I were praying with someone at the altar who was a Christian but was battling persistent sin in their life, I would pray for them but I might also feel it appropriate to tell them what the Scriptures say about God’s forgiveness and our need to repent of sin and turn away from it and resist evil. I may offer them some spiritual disciplines to strengthen them in their struggle against sin.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If I correctly follow what Kliska is saying (a point which I’m for the most part in agreement with) is that binding/losing, forgiving/retaining is connected to the proclamation of the gospel. Those that have faith in Christ and repent of their sin are forgiven of their sins. Those that do not are not forgiven.

So, as an evangelical, if I were praying with someone at the altar who was a Christian but was battling persistent sin in their life, I would pray for them but I might also feel it appropriate to tell them what the Scriptures say about God’s forgiveness and our need to repent of sin and turn away from it and resist evil. I may offer them some spiritual disciplines to strengthen them in their struggle against sin.

So the literal authority to bind and loose is non existent and was not literally given to the Lords ministers biblically, and those who where given the good news by His ministers are bound by their own unwillingness to accept the gospel as each and every congregation offers it by its ministers?

 

[SteveVH]

If I correctly follow what Kliska is saying (a point which I’m for the most part in agreement with) is that binding/losing, forgiving/retaining is connected to the proclamation of the gospel.

It is certainly “connected” to the proclamation of the Gospel. It is the Gospel in action. It is how Christ has chosen to impart his mercy and forgiveness. Not in some vague fashion, but by requiring us to really come to terms with our sin by really confessing our sins to a person acting in the person of Christ himself. And it is Christ himself who absolves us through his ordained priests.

The words of “binding and loosing” are clear enough, as are the very specific words*“whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”* Why must one find a different meaning? Jesus wasn’t using a parable or other story telling technique when he said these words. In the case of giving the authority to forgive sins he first breathed on them. They were a new creation and had been given the authority of Christ, by Christ. God had not breathed upon man since he breathed upon Adam. He was bestowing unimaginable power and authority upon the Apostles and, by necessity, their successors. The power to bind and loose extends far beyond the sacrament of Reconciliation. It is how Christ protects the truth first given to the Apostles, in the Church’s dogmas and doctrines. It carries with it the charism of infallibility.

Those that have faith in Christ and repent of their sin are forgiven of their sins. Those that do not are not forgiven.

That isn’t what Scripture says. It says we are forgiven if we confess our sin. Of course repentance is very much a part of it. But since we’re on the subject, how do you repent of your sins?

So, as an evangelical, if I were praying with someone at the altar who was a Christian but was battling persistent sin in their life, I would pray for them but I might also feel it appropriate to tell them what the Scriptures say about God’s forgiveness and our need to repent of sin and turn away from it and resist evil. I may offer them some spiritual disciplines to strengthen them in their struggle against sin.

But you can’t absolve them and Christ certainly intended for us to be absolved otherwise he would never have given the awesome authority to forgive sins and retain sins. The fact is that he did give this authority in no uncertain terms and one must ask, why?

 

[GaryTaylor]

What is the Apostle Paul talking about here…

1 Corinthians 5:1

I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among you–something that even pagans don’t do. I am told that a man in your church is living in sin with his stepmother.

1 Corinthians 5:2

You are so proud of yourselves, but you should be mourning in sorrow and shame. And you should remove this man from your fellowship.

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.…

Sound literal? Just asking.

 

[Kliska]

What is the Apostle Paul talking about here…

1 Corinthians 5:1

I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among you–something that even pagans don’t do. I am told that a man in your church is living in sin with his stepmother.

1 Corinthians 5:2

You are so proud of yourselves, but you should be mourning in sorrow and shame. And you should remove this man from your fellowship.

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.…

Sound literal? Just asking.

This is about dis-fellowshipping a member in a matter of church discipline, not about retaining a member’s sin. Paul says that he doesn’t judge salvation, but rather judging if it would cause others to stumble, so you drive off the member to make sure the flock doesn’t follow the wayward sheep.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is about dis-fellowshipping a member in a matter of church discipline, not about retaining a member’s sin. Paul says that he doesn’t judge salvation, but rather judging if it would cause others to stumble, so you drive off the member to make sure the flock doesn’t follow the wayward sheep.

“The congregation decides on the man’s guilt, but St. Paul “binds” him, retains his sins, and delivers him to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:1-5); and when on his repentance he is forgiven, it is the apostle who “looses” him, acting as the representative of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:10). In a general sense, the judicial and disciplinary powers of the Christian priesthood have been founded on this passage, which from early times has been used in the service of ordination.” biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/matthew/18.htm

 

[Kliska]

“The congregation decides on the man’s guilt, but St. Paul “binds” him, retains his sins, and delivers him to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:1-5); and when on his repentance he is forgiven, it is the apostle who “looses” him, acting as the representative of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:10). In a general sense, the judicial and disciplinary powers of the Christian priesthood have been founded on this passage, which from early times has been used in the service of ordination.” biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/matthew/18.htm

I can understand why someone coming from your perspective would say that, but I don’t see a binding nor loosing here. As I understand the leaders of the church would have known of the man’s guilt and apparently turned to Paul to give guidance.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know sister, I don’t see it. I respect your opinion though.

5:3 For even though I am absent physically, 4 I am present in spirit.

“And I have already judged the one who did this, just as though I were present”.

5 5:4 When you gather together in the name of our Lord Jesus, 6 and I am with you in spirit, 7 along with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5:5 turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.

 

[Kliska]

I don’t know sister, I don’t see it. I respect your opinion though.

5:3 For even though I am absent physically, 4 I am present in spirit.

“And I have already judged the one who did this, just as though I were present”.

5 5:4 When you gather together in the name of our Lord Jesus, 6 and I am with you in spirit, 7 along with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5:5 turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.

But, If this in line with your beliefs, if the sin itself were retained, Satan wouldn’t just be destroying the flesh, but the soul? That’s what I don’t see here.

My view would be a physical disfellowship that is reversed when the man stops the actions that got him in trouble, and then is allowed back in physical fellowship. Then we are back to the rest of scripture on either side; from a Catholic position a physical disfellowship would necessitate a binding of sin because the man wouldn’t be receiving the sacraments, correct? So the emphasis wouldn’t be on the destruction of the flesh as Paul puts it, but rather the soul.

 

[GaryTaylor]

7 tn Verses 4b-5a are capable of various punctuations: (1) “and I am with you in spirit, through the power of our Lord Jesus turn this man over to Satan”; (2) “and I am with you in spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus, turn this man over to Satan”; (3) “and I am with you in spirit, along with the power of our Lord Jesus, turn this man over to Satan” (as adopted in the text). The first option suggests the Lord’s power is needed when the church is to hand the man over to Satan; the second option suggests that the Lord’s power is present when Paul is gathered with the Corinthians in spirit; the third option leaves the relation of the Lord’s power to the surrounding phrases vague, perhaps implying that both are in view.

8 tn Or perhaps “turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of your fleshly works, so that your spirit may be saved…”; Grk “for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved.” This is one of the most difficult passages in the NT, and there are many different interpretations regarding what is in view here.

(1) Many interpreters see this as some sort of excommunication (“turn this man over to Satan”) which in turn leads to the man’s physical death (“the destruction of the flesh”), resulting in the man’s ultimate salvation (“that [his] spirit may be saved…”).

(2) Others see the phrase “destruction of the flesh” as referring to extreme physical suffering or illness that stops short of physical death, thus leading the offender to repentance and salvation.

(3) A number of scholars (e.g. G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 212-13) take the reference to the “flesh” to refer to the offender’s “sinful nature” or “carnal nature,” which is “destroyed” by placing him outside the church, back in Satan’s domain

(exactly how this “destruction” is accomplished is not clear, and is one of the problems with this view).

(4) More recently some have argued that neither the “flesh” nor the “spirit” belong to the offender, but to the church collectively; thus it is the “fleshly works” of the congregation which are being destroyed by the removal of the offender (cf. 5:13) so that the “spirit,” the corporate life of the church lived in union with God through the Holy Spirit, may be preserved (cf. 5:7-8). See, e.g., B. Campbell, “Flesh and Spirit in 1 Cor 5:5: An Exercise in Rhetorical Criticism of the NT,” JETS 36 (1993): 331-42. The alternate translation “for the destruction of your fleshly works, so that your spirit may be saved” reflects this latter view.

net.bible.org/#!bible/1+Corinthians+5

Few interpretations, the one from antiquity still there though as today. 1 2 and 3 would comprise of excommunication.