How can a priest turn you into a good person?

[MrsAngelala]

Abuses are enough to make this arbitrary

Someone, somewhere, working at the DMV once abused his position to deny a total stranger a driver’s license. Is the process of licensing drivers therefore arbitrary forever and ever amen? Should I declare that since I’ve decided any sort of abuse makes it arbitrary, I’m going to do my own thing and drive without a license?

Do you think that faith-alone doesn’t get abused? How many people do you think walk around claiming to be “saved” Christians, and benefiting from the programs or charities of churches, when they’re actually not? (This is separate from the question of – how do you know you’re saved?) I’ve heard there are men who go to churches and falsely claim salvation explicitly to find “good girls” to date. Anecdotal, but illustrative.

You are quite welcome for the prayers. Please also accept my warning: this is very sloppy thinking, and you are busily talking yourself out of the Church. It’s a long road back. I beg you to take care.

 

[thinkandmull]

It leaves the question open why attrition is good enough to get to heaven only by way of a sacrament

 

[Tigre]

It leaves the question open why attrition is good enough to get to heaven only by way of a sacrament

The Church has deemed it so. By grace, the sacrament completes the interior process stirring the penitent through attrition to seek absolution. I think that situation is rare, however. And it isn’t necessarily resolved by turning to a non-sacramental system. Would God forgive you (or grant you initial salvation) if you didn’t honestly care about His love and your sins offending Him but only wanted to avoid punishment?

I believe a penitent who initially has only attrition ordinarily achieves some level of contrition, which itself results in the desire to then seek the sacrament. Not the other way around. A pure fear of hell with no attendant recognition and sorrow that one has offended God, coupled with the desire to seek sacramental absolution, is an odd idea, at least to me. Have you ever experienced that (honest question)?

When parsing these elements and their definitions, it is easy to visualize a clear distinction between attrition and contrition. In practice, I cannot recall a time where I had only attrition for a mortal sin and yet still sought reconciliation.

 

[thinkandmull]

Focusing however on Trent’s doctrine, I realized what’s been bothering me today. There seems to be something fishy about the limbo state of attrition. Its not enough to get someone saved, but enough to allow the remission of sin nonetheless. The problem seems to arise because the person doesn’t do anything to be saved. He is in a spot where he can’t be saved, where he is at, but something external somehow cancels his debt. With Jesus’s sacrifice the grace was won so our wills can be renovated. But there is no renovation here. The will is still evil because it is in mortal sin, but the person can be changed into a good person by the snap of God’s finger. That sounds like imputed justice

 

[Tigre]

Focusing however on Trent’s doctrine, I realized what’s been bothering me today. There seems to be something fishy about the limbo state of attrition. Its not enough to get someone saved, but enough to allow the remission of sin nonetheless. The problem seems to arise because the person doesn’t do anything to be saved. He is in a spot where he can’t be saved, where he is at, but something external somehow cancels his debt. With Jesus’s sacrifice the grace was won so our wills can be renovated. But there is no renovation here. The will is still evil because it is in mortal sin, but the person can be changed into a good person by the snap of God’s finger. That sounds like imputed justice

Baptism renovates. Likewise reconciliation renovates. Both are actions that involve an outward event - the sacrament. In the case of baptism of desire or a perfect act of contrition, both can be efficacious so long as the external act is desired and intended even if one dies before the sacrament is performed. The sacramental act is always required to be intended though.

Reconciliation and attrition is somewhat similar to a case of baptism where a person of the age of reason wants to the benefits of salvation without professing actual belief. That would not constitute baptism of desire, and may not suffice even if a water baptism is performed. Because the Church believes actual grace is transmitted by reconciliation, it is really a gift of the Church (exercising the power of the keys) that attrition without any contrition at all is considered sufficient to remit mortal sins if the sacrament is actually performed. It is a gift of grace to one who says, so what if I offended God, I just don’t want to burn forever. Look hard at what attrition actually is.

Go to confession. While you are waiting to go, make an act of contrition and ask God for the grace that it be perfect. Then trust Him.

The alternative is OSAS, sin to you heart’s content (never mind the “go and sin no more” verse) and at the particular judgment tell Christ “I know You think all my post-baptismal sinning is wrong, but I don’t care about what You think I just don’t want to go to hell. And Trent didn’t sit well with me, so I didn’t bother with confession. I’m with Luther on this one. We still cool though?”

 

[DebChris]

The priest can’t reform your character and make you magically you unable to sin in the future, if that’s what you mean.

Scripture says “The righteous man sins seven times a day.”
Not all sins are equal as the Church rightly teaches. A stubbed toe is not as bad as broken leg, but they still hurt. Venial sins are absolved when we receive Communion.
Only mortal sins need to be confessed as they represent a break in the relationship we have with our Creator.
The Church encourages confession of venial sins. They are a weakness, a bad habit that can develop to a point where the sin being committed does become mortal.
Although he was Lutheran, and not Catholic, I recommend Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s book The Cost of Discipleship. He differentiates between cheap grace and the true cost of discipleship.
“Failure to confess sins is a sign of pride and self-deception.”
It is true that Christ died for our sins. His Sacrifice calls for a response on our part. Cheap grace means continuing in our sins. It denies the transforming power of the Cross.
Confession means absolution because as others have already stated, the priest acts in persona of Christ. He gave them the power to loose and bind. When questioned by the Pharisees about His ability to forgive sins, a power reserved for God alone, Christ responded with physical healing.
If we in our humanity cannot confess before another human, how will we have the stamina to stand before God on judgment day? In the presence of another fallible human, we hear the words of consolation, even when our confession is less than perfect. Moreover, the confessional serves as a place of counsel and guidance. How can I repair the damage my sin has caused? More importantly, what can I do to change my life, to change the habit that caused the rift, or in the process of creating a rift between me and my God? If there are other members of the Body of Christ involved, what can I do to repair the relationship that has been damaged?

The priest does not change me into a good person. I am the only person with that power, and then only through the transforming grace of God. The priest is available in my need, even as Simon the Cyrene was available to help carry the cross on Calvary. What I need is the Sacrament and healing that comes only from God through His minister, through the man He has called for that purpose.

 

[Usagi]

Focusing however on Trent’s doctrine, I realized what’s been bothering me today. There seems to be something fishy about the limbo state of attrition. Its not enough to get someone saved, but enough to allow the remission of sin nonetheless. The problem seems to arise because the person doesn’t do anything to be saved. He is in a spot where he can’t be saved, where he is at, but something external somehow cancels his debt. With Jesus’s sacrifice the grace was won so our wills can be renovated. But there is no renovation here. The will is still evil because it is in mortal sin, but the person can be changed into a good person by the snap of God’s finger. That sounds like imputed justice

It’s always “a snap of God’s finger” that starts the process, though. The sanctifying grace that moves one from spiritually “dead” to spiritually “alive” always comes from Him at His choosing, and there’s nothing we can do to earn it, or stop being dead (you say “evil”) before He acts. Actually growing in sanctity in our behavior and strengthening our will to avoid evil and do good is also a movement of God’s grace, but a process that can be life-long (even extending into purgatory in our thinking). We don’t disagree with the Protestants on that one.

Where we disagree, and where infused and imputed righteousness differ, is that imputed righteousness is purely a legal fiction, entirely separate from sanctification. God does nothing to change the sinner at that moment except to declare that He now considers the sinner to have Jesus’ sinless status. (This is likely a simplification, and the two probably blend together more in practice, but the more doctrinaire Protestants insist that this happens first.)

Infused righteousness may look the same from outside, in that the person baptized or reconciled is not often visibly or profoundly changed, but we insist that a change does in fact occur. The move from death to life is not just a change in legal status but a real infusion of God’s own life into the one who was dead in sin. You are not still in mortal sin, and if not completely liberated from the pull of continuing to sin, your will is at least freed up and strengthened to resist doing so and do something else instead. You may be weak as a kitten or even still in a coma, with a long road to full recovery ahead … but there is still a profound difference between being alive in that state and being dead.

Also remember that the sacraments aren’t magic. A person still clinging to his sin, whose will is still firmly attached to evil, cannot benefit from absolution even if he and the priest go through the motions of the sacrament. But if he has begun to turn away from his sin, to repent and be sorrowful – even if that is motivated primarily by fear of punishment and therefore is attrition rather than perfect contrition – he who was dead can be made alive again.

 

[Wesrock]

A priest guides you…only you can make you a good person!

It is ultimately down to the individual to repent and convert, true, but let’s not forget that the Church and priests are instruments by which God’s grace is given to men, and that the Church has been trusted with the sacramental authority to dispense these graces. Christ truly operates through the priesthood.

 

[Wesrock]

I think you are not in line with what the Church teaches. If a person only has imperfect contrition, it is up to the priest whether he wants to make him holy or keep him evil. This sounds arbitrary

John 20: 22 And when [Jesus] had said this, [Jesus] breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

2 Corinthians 2: 10 And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

It’s quite scriptural.

And to be clear, a penitent lying in a confession or intentionally omitting mortal sins invalidates his confession.

I wouod not say “keep him evil,” though. That conception is not in line with Church theology on the su ject.

 

[davidv]

Someone who is not evil

No one is evil. Persons, who are created good by God, do evil things. No one but yourself can keep you from doing evil things.

 

[Wesrock]

Focusing however on Trent’s doctrine, I realized what’s been bothering me today. There seems to be something fishy about the limbo state of attrition. Its not enough to get someone saved, but enough to allow the remission of sin nonetheless. The problem seems to arise because the person doesn’t do anything to be saved. He is in a spot where he can’t be saved, where he is at, but something external somehow cancels his debt. With Jesus’s sacrifice the grace was won so our wills can be renovated. But there is no renovation here. The will is still evil because it is in mortal sin, but the person can be changed into a good person by the snap of God’s finger. That sounds like imputed justice

Going to confession itself is a measure of seeking reconciliation with Christ and his Church, even if contrition is imperfect. That is a positive step taken by a penitent giving an honest confession.

 

[DebChris]

Going to confession itself is a measure of seeking reconciliation with Christ and his Church, even if contrition is imperfect. That is a positive step taken by a penitent giving an honest confession.

If we could save ourselves, there would have been no need for the Sacrifice of the Cross.
When a person enters the Confessional, his or her sins are the substance brought into the confessional. They are laid at the foot of the cross.
It is an admission of guilt, no matter of how imperfect.
God is not an accountant, who tallies up all the transgression make against Him.
A first step has been made in the reconciliation process. “Bless me, Father for I have sinned.” There is an admission of guilt. The guilty person has been convicted and led by the Holy Spirit to the Confessional.
Jesus died that all might be saved. I’m don’t remember the name of the Saint, but a woman who had lived a wanton life came to him. She was unsure of the Grace contained in the Sacrament. After her confession, he came forth and asked if he could embrace her. She now stood in the purity of a soul cleansed by God.
Her past no longer mattered.
We read in the gospels the story of the woman who wept while pouring expensive perfume on the feet of Jesus. He admonished the Pharisees who failed to see her love.
I remember from a Jesus Day conference I attended in Chicago. Many will reject the Kingdom of Heaven because of the people who are there; the drug abusers, the prostitutes, the outcasts who repented and were restored.
When I learned the formula were confession, I learned to add " and any sin I may have forgotten." A simple but effective way to cover all sins committed. No need to be overly scrupulous. God is not looking for a grocery list. He is looking for a change in heart. We are adopted brothers and sisters in the Family of God. That is how we are to treat one another, not by judging but by helping.

 

[MPat]

Whether someone is a good person or not shouldn’t depend on whether a priest wanted to absolve him or not.

Why? You say that “shouldn’t” as if that was obvious. It is not (Bible extract about forgiving and retaining sins has been given already, problems with “good person” have been mentioned as well).

Not to mention Trent also said that one cannot go through life without committing sin, which denies free will.

How? Again, you say “denies free will” as if that was obvious. It is not.

Is it possible that old Luther was right about the Catholic Church wanting people dependent on her so that she “stays in business” so to speak

In “business”? By encouraging confession? Seriously? You had to choose the sacrament where there isn’t even much of an opportunity to offer priest any money?

(At least Luther mainly chose “sale of indulgences” for his criticism, which did have something to do with monetary transactions…)

OK, first of all, stop panicking.

Second, do not trust your own reasoning, trust the Church - at least for a while. You are not losing anything - as you can see, your reasoning here, while panicking, isn’t worth much.

Third, perhaps it would be a good idea to run through the basics, so that it would be easier to recall what the Church actually teaches, even while panicking. Maybe also to go to confession - (at least) to confirm that it doesn’t cost anything.

 

[thinkandmull]

So if a person, with actual grace, has enough merit to be absolved by God with attrition only, why isn’t everyone with attrition absolved? Or maybe in the end they are (that sounds fair)

 

[Wesrock]

.And as to that imperfect contrition which is called attrition, because it is commonly conceived either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment, the council declares that if with the hope of pardon, it excludes the wish to sin, it not only does not make man a hypocrite and a greater sinner, but that it is even a gift of God, and an impulse of the Holy Spirit, who does not indeed as yet dwell in the penitent, but who only moves him whereby the penitent, being assisted, prepares a way for himself unto justice, and although this attrition cannot of itself, without the Sacrament of Penance, conduct the sinner to justification yet does it dispose him to receive the grace of God in the Sacrament of Penance.

Someone who feels attrition isn’t necessarily repentant. They feel sorry but haven’t actually sought reconciliation. Being moved by attrition to the Sacrament of Reconciliation is an act of repentance.

Someone who feels perfect contrition is truly repentant, and if one feels perfect contrition one fully intends to actually still go to the sacrament.

 

[thinkandmull]

My point is that God recognizes attrition seeking forgiveness as enough merit to be absolved, so everyone should in the end be absolved if they seek forgiveness through attrition

 

[pianistclare]

My point is that God recognizes attrition seeking forgiveness as enough merit to be absolved, so everyone should in the end be absolved if they seek forgiveness through attrition

Do you mean “contrition?”

 

[thinkandmull]

Imperfect contrition is attrition

 

[Usagi]

My point is that God recognizes attrition seeking forgiveness as enough merit to be absolved, so everyone should in the end be absolved if they seek forgiveness through attrition

The sacrament of reconciliation is the ordinary method of cleansing post-baptismal mortal sin, but God is not bound by the sacraments. Further, He knows every heart, is perfectly just, and wants everyone in Heaven with Him, so there isn’t going to be a situation in which one person is saved and another damned arbitrarily if their response to grace was identical.

Talking about “merit” is strange when we are dealing with people who are dead in sin. There is no “deserving” forgiveness of mortal sin. The concept of merit only really comes into play when you’re talking about subsequent responses to actual grace on the path of increasing sanctity.

On the other hand, we are not to neglect the sacrament if we do have access to it. As was just pointed out, even one forgiven due to perfect contrition is still expected to avail themselves of the sacrament.

 

[thinkandmull]

what about people in the New World before Columbus? Why would God bind himself to a sacrament that restricts Him? Or maybe He would bilocate priests there.