Going to confession ASAP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psaltos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We shouldn’t worry ourselves about the early years. We are currently under the jurisdiction of the Bishops and Pope of our time who has the power of binding and loosing.

We should be obedient to them, and follow the current norms as they have laid out… Most especially, follow the directions of your priest or spiritual director.
 
If it never has been done, then it’s NOT part of the Deposit of Faith (I.e. Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition), and as such will NEVER be.
 
Theo2 said:
Sorry you are wrong. The Pope has the authority to change it.
Click to expand...
Don’t be so sure of that. There are limits to his authority, and he probably can’t do this for the same reason he can’t give priests the authoriry to ordain priests.
 
I have it on good authority that there is nothing that would prevent Deacons from hearing confessions, if that is what the church decides to do. I will follow whatever the church decides. So far they have decided not to give that faculty to deacons.

The church decides than any Christian can validly Baptize, Deacons can baptize and officiate Marriages, priest can do all but Holy Orders and only Bishops can do that. To make a new Bishop it takes 3 Bishops. If you think all that is in the bible, I haven’t seen it. It is church law and church law can be changed. Now, St. JPII said he could not ordain women to the priesthood but I don’t think that can be found in Scripture either. Now that he said it however it probable will not change.
 
Theo2 said:
The church decides than any Christian can validly Baptize, Deacons can baptize and officiate Marriages,
Click to expand...
Am I not in the Eastern Catholicism forum? Eastern Catholic Deacons may NOT baptize or perform a marriage. Lay people can baptize only in the case of a grave emergency (impending death with no access to a licit baptism).

To the OP… whatever your confessor/spiritual director tells you: do that.
 
Last edited:
Psaltos said:
Do eastern catholic priests sometimes prevent a person from recieving communion after he has confessed a very big sin? Is there ever a case where someone absolved is preventing from receiving communion due to the gravity of his sin? The coptic Orthodox church is very big on this.
Click to expand...
AFTER confession? This doesn’t make sense, since the penitent would have been absolved. Unless, for some reason the confessor withheld absolution. I admittedly don’t know anything about the Coptic Orthodox practices, but I just don’t get it.
 
A deacon can already hear your confession, or mine. He just can’t give absolution.

In some Orthodox churches, Confession is sometimes made to a non-ordained spiritual father (or mother), with the priest providing absolution only. I imagine that could be possible for the future.
 
The bible says “do not lay hands on anyone hastily.” The catholic church wouldnt baptize anyone immediately; they wait until they are prepared. So if someone has lapsed, maybe the same rule should apply.
 
Even if true, the “have to” part is emphasized. Nowadays, you can easily get to a daily Mass and ask the priest for Confession. There are priests everywhere there are Churches, and if they don’t give you Confession after you asked it’s on them if you die between then and your next confession or so I’ve heard.
 
Neophyte is right. Look at the definition of papal infallibility in Vatican I:
 
If you go after liturgy then I beg you not to go to communion, especially if you have serious mortal sin.
 
This whole mindset is very Latin. It’s exactly what I DON’T need. I already repented in my heart …confession is more than just absolution…it’s also about getting advice. I spent too many years ( I grew up Roman Catholic) feeling like a horrible wretch of a person every time I messed up. Feeling like God hated me…that I had to follow all these rules or else I wouldn’t be properly forgiven…it’s not healthy. I’ve FINALLY found some peace and have been able to make some headway with the religious aspect of my OCD.
 
Last edited:
Angel_Gabriel said:
This whole mindset is very Latin. It’s exactly what I DON’T need. I already repented in my heart …confession is more than just absolution
Click to expand...
Confession in the West is like going to court and pleading guilty and doing a sentence to resolve the sins at that moment. Depending on the confessor I think it makes people overly laden with guilt (scrupulosity), confusion and feelings of self loathing.

Confession in the East is more like a family doctor/patient relationship. It should be a life long progression.

I won’t even repeat what my confessor has told me about repentance of the heart… not here. People would be up in arms. I, too, get weary of people replying in the Eastern forum with a bunch of Western legalism that is not conducive to the praxis of the East.
 
XXI_4 said:
Confession in the West is like going to court and pleading guilty and doing a sentence to resolve the sins at that moment. Depending on the confessor I think it makes people overly laden with guilt (scrupulosity), confusion and feelings of self loathing.

Confession in the East is more like a family doctor/patient relationship. It should be a life long progression.
Click to expand...
I think that both East and West are being painted with a very broad brush here.

The West has always taught that Confession is a sacrament of healing. Yes, the juridical aspect is present and often over-emphasized, but both the judge and physician are present in the confessional. My regular (Eastern) confessor was unavailable for a while, so I sought out an FSSP (traditionalist) priest for confession. Although his approach was decidedly Western, I did not see it as rigid and legalistic in any way. I approached the Divine Physician and I was healed.

On the other hand, the East is not entirely free from legalism in its approach to confession.

In most Russian parishes you may not approach the chalice unless you have been to confession the evening preceding.

  1. Those (age 7 and older) preparing for Communion MUST receive Holy Confession before partaking of Holy Communion. … This is usually in the evening prior to the evening service.
Click to expand...
Likewise, it is taught in the East that one must examine one’s conscience as part of the preparation for Communion. If one is aware of serious sin, one should not approach without Confession.

In order for us to commune, we ought to examine ourselves, if we are in a position to commune. This is specifically commanded by the Apostle Paul: “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself not discerning the Lord’s body” (Cor. 11:28-29).

An investigation of ourselves… will show us whether we are able to approach Holy Communion. But be careful! In this self examination we must be neither supersensitive nor senseless. We said elsewhere also that no one is completely worthy to commune, and that Holy Communion is not a reward for the saint, but a strengthening for sinners struggling for holiness.

The self examination and self censure of a spiritual person never has an exonerating result. The faithful Christian always declares himself guilty. But one declaration of guilt varies from another declaration of guilt. If from this self examination one catches himself guilty of grave sins, such as sins of the flesh, explosions of anger, a serious dispute with another person, etc., then he should consider that he cannot commune without confession. If, however, he catches himself guilty of “easily forgivable” sins, which even the greatest saint - bearing flesh and dwelling in the world - commits, then he may decide, with a feeling of this sinfulness of course, to commune . .
Click to expand...
 
It sounds like they still did have something similar to what we have today though. It was just distinct from what they called “Penance” at the time.

From the article: “The practice of frequent confession to a “spiritual father” has existed in the Church from Apostolic times, though not necessarily joined to the “once in a lifetime formal Penance.” It may have even existed in Judaism during the time of our Lord and the Apostles.”

To me, this sounds just like our sacrament of Reconciliation. Am I reading this wrong?
 
That’s how confession may have been approached in the past. Since Vatican II, the “hospital for sinners” approach to confession has been much more prevalent.
 
babochka said:
I think that both East and West are being painted with a very broad brush here.

The West has always taught that Confession is a sacrament of healing. Yes, the juridical aspect is present and often over-emphasized, but both the judge and physician are present in the confessional.
Click to expand...
twf said:
That’s how confession may have been approached in the past. Since Vatican II, the “hospital for sinners” approach to confession has been much more prevalent.
Click to expand...
Of course I was speaking in generalities, and was thinking more of the actual practice/experience of confession. Let me explain a little better. For the record, I am Maronite so my Eastern experience is coming from a Antiochene/Syriac tradition.

So I see the actual practice of confession (again, generally speaking) as such:

West: Penitent enters a confession booth with a screen meant for anonymity (it may or may not actually be anonymous, but has that feeling). The penitent lists their sins and number of times committed, and gets a penance - usually a few prayers, but maybe something different. May or may not receive some quick advice, gets absolved and is done. This usually only takes a few minutes. To me this is very matter-of-fact and a cold process, even if it is meant to be healing. It also, again to me, seems like it encourages the mindset “oh no, I watched pornography, I must get to confession… whew, that’s over and I did my penance, now I’m in the clear again” without a deeper understanding of growing in the spiritual life. Kind of like a child who understands something is wrong “because mommy and daddy told me it is against the rules” but doesn’t understand why it is wrong.

East: Penitent enters a confessional room, sitting face to face with their confessor/spiritual director. The confessor is familiar with them and understands their struggles/patterns of sin. The penitent goes through their sins, which includes a discussion. The discussion may draw out some root causes of why a person may be vulnerable to a particular sin or point to near occasions of sin to avoid that hadn’t occurred to the penitent before. The priest likely will give advice and spiritual direction to help guide the person toward growing in spiritual maturity. Penance is given, and absolution and I think then the penitent leaves with a better mindset and more solid tools to make improvements in the struggle against sin.

I would get into more detail, but it’s been a very long day and I’m tired. But I hope this helps clear up my point of view.
 
What you describe as the Eastern experience is what Latins experience if they are privileged enough to have a spiritual director. Of course, that is an ideal and not realistic for everyone. There are literally thousands of faithful per priest after all…
Face to face confession is also very common in the Latin Church in recent decades.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top