Limits on absolution? CCC 1864 vs Hebrews 6

[gazelam]

My limited understanding of the Catholic doctrine of absolution is that all confessed sins will be absolved assuming that the sinner follows the guidance of the priest. I assume that this sentiment is expressed in CCC 1864: “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

However Hebrews 6:4-6 states:

4 For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit

5 and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,_

6 and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt.

It seems to me the author of Hebrews is saying that someone who has previously attained a significant level and righteousness and closeness to and knowledge of God and then intentionally walks away from God may not be extended mercy later.

Any thoughts or clarification?

 

[Fauken]

I think it’s more a matter of “inoculation”, if that makes sense. There are plenty of cases of “I was an altar boy” or “My father was a minister” among those who leave Catholicism or Christianity. They think, correctly or otherwise, they’ve seen it all and know more than the average person, so they’re more likely to not search in the direction they came from.

 

[otjm]

Theology was not in the dictionary of the Church for perhaps 50 to 100 years after Hebrews was likely written. It was as the Church confronted both the pagan world and early heresies that the Fathers of the Church started casting about for better ways to convey the meaning and intent behind the kerygma. Early on, they were intent on spreading the Good News; as time went on and they received more and more push back, they had to develop what we might call theological language; and the process was not without disagreement. Ultimately, the Church turned to philosophical terms, although there were those who rejected Platonic categories, such as Tertullian.

So we can look at Hebrews as correct, but not necessarily the final thought and comment on the issue of forgiveness. As the Church spent time meditating on Scripture, doctrinal development occurred. We need to take care that we do not engage in what is often referred to a proof-texting, taking a text out of context and deciding that is the sum total of thought about the matter.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Thanks @otjm for the historical explanation, but that still leaves the apparent contradiction highlighted by the OP, I think.

I don’t think the church is being unscriptural though, as the contradictions arise from scripture. No doubt the section from the CCC will have its own scriptural references, and the church is giving primacy to one interpretation.

 

[Vico]

…
Any thoughts or clarification?

Haydock Commentary, Hebrews 6 4

Ver. 4. &c. For it is impossible, [1] &c. This is an obscure place, differently expounded, which shows how rash it is for the ignorant to pretend to understand the holy Scriptures. Many understand these words, it is impossible, &c. of the sacrament of penance, or of returning to God by a profitable repentance, especially after such heinous sins as an apostasy from the true faith. But then we must take the word impossible, to imply no more than a thing that is very hard to be done, or that seldom happens, as when it is said, (Matt. xix. 26.) that it is impossible for rich men to be saved: and (Luke xvii. 1.) it is impossible that scandals should not come. For it is certain that it is never impossible for the greatest sinners to repent by the assistance which God offers them, who has also left the power to his ministers to forgive in his name the greatest sins. But others (whose interpretation seems preferable) expound this of baptism, which can only be given once. The words here in the text very much favour this exposition, when it is said, who were once enlightened. For baptism in the first ages was called the sacrament of illumination. See S. Denis de cælesti Hierar. c. iv. S. Greg. Naz. &c. The following words also agree with baptism, when they are said to have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost; to have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come; all which signify the interior graces, the miraculous gifts, and power of working miracles, which they who were baptized frequently received in those days.
…

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment230.shtml

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

I look at this paragraph from the Catechism and the Scripture passage cited as being in agreement, basically stating that there is endless mercy for all those but the obstinate.

 

[Robert1111]

@ Cor_ad_Cor

This is what i tried to convey in my topic as well.

 

[gazelam]

Thanks for the responses. God bless all!

 

[MT1926]

6 and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt.

It seems to me the author of Hebrews is saying that someone who has previously attained a significant level and righteousness and closeness to and knowledge of God and then intentionally walks away from God may not be extended mercy later.

Any thoughts or clarification?

I am not seeing anything in here telling us that they may not be extended mercy later.

I read verse 4 & 5 as describing a genuine believer. Someone who has been instructed deep enough in the faith that they have…

been enlightened… been Baptized
tasted the heavenly gift…received the Eucharist
tasted the good word of God…heard and understood the teaching of the Gospel
the powers of the age to come…were taught and understood the teaching on Salvation

Then we get to verse 6 saying they have fallen away from the 4 things listed in verses 4 &5. However, this isn’t saying it is impossible for them to receive God’s mercy it is saying it is impossible to bring them back to repentance. If we read the rest of verse 6 it tells us why. The key words here is “for themselves”.

To me Hebrews is describing the guy that rejects authority. They had an authoritative teacher who brought them to the truth of the Gospel message. But they fell away because they re crucified the son of God for themselves. Which to me means they decided they were going abandon the beliefs they were taught and instead read the Gospel and decide for themselves what the crucifixion means. Basically, re crucify Christ by giving His sacrifice a new meaning.

People that think they know what they know and are unwilling to listen to anyone else are set in their ways. I hear it all the time. You ask someone what this means to them and they say I don’t know what it means, all I know is it can’t mean what you think it means because it contradicts what I already know about this verse. It is impossible to help these people see the truth. They see a contradiction and ignore it instead of letting the thought enter into their mind that they just might be wrong. This is what the author of Hebrews is saying, these people were taught the truth but decided their answers were the correct answers. It is impossible to change a person who is set in their ways.

That’s how I see it,

God Bless

 

[mythbuster1]

I am convinced that God would even pardon Satan if he would repent, but so adamant is his will to do evil, that even the torments of Gehenna do not provoke repentance. It is not that there are limits to God’s Mercy, but that those who freely give themselves over to evil and show contempt for mercy have no desire to repent. There is no heart harder than an apostate.

 

[otjm]

“to bring them to repentance” may be the operative phrase in this passage, as others have noted above, as it implies another bringing the fallen away back.

There is always danger in what borders on, or gets into, proof texting; that is, taking a phrase, sentence or more out of context and attempting to build a theological position out of it. A prime example is in John 6, where Christ says “the flesh is of no avail” has sent many a Protestant sect into the tailspin, with many saying Christ did not give us his flesh to eat (or variations on that - with something over 30,000 permutations, I am not chasing them).

The Church does not deny Scripture. Therefore, where there is a difference on the surface, one has to look beyond the text(s).

For all I know (and that is little), the writer of Hebrews May have, in so many words, been telling the active Christians to not put effort into trying to (wrestle with, bring back, drag back kicking and screaming) those, who, having become Christians, turn their back on all that they were given and are obstinate. To go from that to reading it as saying that they cannot be forgiven if they come back seeking repentance appears to be beyond what the text says.