Right! That makes perfect sense! Obviously we’ve done it wrong for the past two thousand years.
Can you illuminate us on this?
It’s quite simple. The priest goes by what the penitent tells him. The priest has to assume that what he’s being told is the truth. Based on that, (and if he is the person’s regular confessor) he can make the assumption that the penitent is sorry and resolves to try to not commit the sin again. Now here’s the rub: If the penitent is not truly sorry, does not intend to avoid this sin, then the absolution the priest gives is invalid. Those sins are not forgiven. Nowhere in Catholic teaching does it say, nor in our Lord’s words to His apostles, that a priest must know the heart of each person. That’s absurd. That’s precisely why only God knows what’s in the heart of each individual and that’s why the Church will never declare someone in hell.
You are creating scenarios that are ridiculous.
Simply put, in the Sacrament of Penance, we are assured by the very Words of Our Lord that if we are truthful, honest, and sincerely remorseful, our sins are forgiven. We do not have that same assurance if we simply decide to ask for forgiveness on our own. I’M NOT SAYING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE–but we don’t have that absolute, 100% promise as Christ gave to His apostles “whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you bind, they are bound.”
In the case of a penitent lying in confession, even if the priest does not know the penitent is lying, the absolution he gives is then rendered invalid. Just as in the case of the sacrament of matrimony: if one of the parties lies about wanting children, or some other thing, the sacrament of matrimony is not received. The marriage therefore is not blessed by God. That is why annullments are given. It is simply a recognition of the Church that the sacrament of matrimony never existed. (null=empty)
This is not all that complicated. It does not matter what the priest believes either about Church teaching or about the penitent. If the priest happens to be aware of some seirous sin such as a public scandal (as in promoting abortion) he can refuse absolution if the penitent refuses to acknowledge this sin. If he is a validly ordained Catholic priest, he has the power to forgive. If the PENITENT is dishonest and the priest does not know this person, even if he gives the absolution, the absolution is invalid–it doesn’t “take”. The responsibility is then lifted from the priest to the penitent and is then in God’s hands. I had a priest tell me once in confession that something that was clearly a mortal sin, wasn’t. I said to him that I believed it was and that I wanted to confess it as such. He accepted that and we moved on.
BINGO!!
With all due respect, everytime I read one of your posts, I get more and more confused about your questions.
Well sorry about that. I was trying to get some clarity but clearly no one is understanding me. So AS I said, I will just let it go. Let’s consider the topic closed. Thanks to those who tried to explain.
Priests don’t exercise their ministry according to their own thoughts. This is not a protestant denomination, but the Catholic Church. If a priest absolved you, he discerned from your words that you repented and that it was proper to absolve you. To be clear: if it was wrong to absolve you for whatever reason - maybe you were unrepentant or did not will to cease committing that sin - rest assured that all sins were forgiven except that one, for nobody makes a fool out of God. If another priest negates absolution, he had excellent reasons and must have clearly explained what to do in order to be absolved. If you ignore his advice, switch priest and get absolved, that is a sacrilege, and must be confessed as well.
No, it depends on whether or not some sin was mortal and whether or not you repented. When the minister of Christ says “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, all mortal sins that you repented from are forgiven, even those you may have forgotten to confess. If you later recall that a mortal sin was left unconfessed, you are forgiven but bound to confess it in the next occasion. This is the will of Christ on this matter. It’s very straightforward.
You don’t give specific details and simply express your doubts on the validity and legitimacy of a Sacrament instituted by Christ and exercised by the Church in the same way throughout the ages all the way back to the apostles. If you have this sort of spiritual struggle, you should speak to your confessor for spiritual direction and you will be helped. We can’t help too much because you can’t share everything and we don’t have the expertise or the special grace that God grants to his ministers. My advice, again: don’t argue against the Sacraments, you will simply hurt yourself by doing so.
Terese,
Anne,
Anne,
Anne,
Appeal to tradition
No, appeal to God, who would not let billions of Christians throughout twenty centuries be mistaken on such an important matter.
I assume you believe the priest in standing in place of Christ to forgive. If that is the case, I go straight to Christ.
But that’s neither the will of Christ, nor what the Scriptures teach.
It’s real. I don’t want to share specifics here. But it has led to doubts about the sacrament. Often I can ignore them, but reading that thread about mortal sin brought them up again im just going to try to ignore them and try not to question or figure it out any more. I know it is best to have one confessor which I learned through this whole experience.I wish I had never posted here.