Penance and confession?

[thistle]

I’m asking if anyone else makes decisions based on “good impressions”. One does not have to know what constitutes good impressions for each person, to figure out if it is normal but just that acting on good impressions is not inconsistent for normal people for certain things.

One question about the validity issue though, what does Thistle mean by there’s no such thing as an invalid confession? Does this mean something similar to “either you are pregnant or you are not, because there is no intermediate state?”.

And apparently this is only true if the word “absolution” is equivocated and so is the statement really false?

You obviously did not read Bookcat’s post. Absolution is invalid if the priest does not use the correct words to give absolution.
If he does then the absolution is valid and cannot later be rendered invalid by a penitant refusing to do their penance.

What on earth are you talking about going on about good impression if you are sure or unsure. There is only sure and unsure, nothing in between. With this I’m talking about your issue of being sure or unsure about having done your penance. The sure or unsure has nothing to do with the validity of absolution.

 

[Bookcat]

You obviously did not read Bookcat’s post. Absolution is invalid if the priest does not use the correct words to give absolution.
If he does then the absolution is valid and cannot later be rendered invalid by a penitant later changing their mind and refusing to do their penance.

.

Such would be a NEW sin.

Just to get it into the fuller context of what I noted

Also of course if a Person is say not sorry for their mortal sins…not repent…or plan to do them again…(not just fear that they may fall…) …things like that.

 

[thistle]

Such would be a NEW sin.

Just to get it into the fuller context of what I noted

Also of course if a Person is say not sorry for their mortal sins…not repent…or plan to do them again…(not just fear that they may fall…) …things like that.

Yes you are correct.

 

[fakename]

You obviously did not read Bookcat’s post. Absolution is invalid if the priest does not use the correct words to give absolution.
If he does then the absolution is valid and cannot later be rendered invalid by a penitant refusing to do their penance.

What on earth are you talking about going on about good impression if you are sure or unsure. There is only sure and unsure, nothing in between. With this I’m talking about your issue of being sure or unsure about having done your penance. The sure or unsure has nothing to do with the validity of absolution.

Okay.

On the second question, I’ve reiterated my question several times and each time it appears that the question has been completely posed. For after all I even gave the reason why I was posing the question so why is there a need for you to ask “what on earth” it means? I was not talking about the validity of the absolution.

If the problem stems from the idea that sure and unsure have no intermediate, then I must say that on some interpretation sure and unsure do have an intermediate and this is evident from the fact that people often speak of being somewhat sure or half-certain or of having a probable account of something or finally when they say they have a good impression that something is.

So is it normal and safe to make decisions on good impressions? I’m assuming you’ve had a good impression that something was the case?

It’s a simple question, but I’ve been wrong before.

 

[thistle]

Okay.

On the second question, I’ve reiterated my question several times and each time it appears that the question has been completely posed. For after all I even gave the reason why I was posing the question so why is there a need for you to ask “what on earth” it means? I was not talking about the validity of the absolution.

If the problem stems from the idea that sure and unsure have no intermediate, then I must say that on some interpretation sure and unsure do have an intermediate and this is evident from the fact that people often speak of being somewhat sure or half-certain or of having a probable account of something or finally when they say they have a good impression that something is.

So is it normal and safe to make decisions on good impressions? I’m assuming you’ve had a good impression that something was the case?

It’s a simple question, but I’ve been wrong before.

You (as can anyone) make decisions however you like. This has nothing to do with whether you are sure or unsure about something. You are either sure or not sure you performed the penance. There is nothing more and nothing in between.

 

[fakename]

You (as can anyone) make decisions however you like. This has nothing to do with whether you are sure or unsure about something. You are either sure or not sure you performed the penance. There is nothing more and nothing in between.

As I said before, at least commonly, sure and unsure mean certain and uncertain. But we see that there are intermediates between those two extremes or else the only probabilities that would exist would be 1 and 0. And so it happens that in common use, people often say that they are 99% sure and that when they are 99% sure then they are sure. They don’t use the word “sure” to denote 100% certainty nor then do they use unsure to denote perfect uncertainty.

So the answer can’t be “you can make decisions anyway you like” & “this has nothing to do with sure and unsure”, for this answer completely dissolves the basis for the question asked more than it answers it (for the question makes the common sense assumption that sure and unsure are contraries with intermediates).

So I’ll need a new answer that connects a given level of being sure with some decision making criteria and how commonly these two levels and criteria are accepted among people.

 

[thistle]

As I said before, at least commonly, sure and unsure mean certain and uncertain. But we see that there are intermediates between those two extremes or else the only probabilities that would exist would be 1 and 0. And so it happens that in common use, people often say that they are 99% sure and that when they are 99% sure then they are sure. They don’t use the word “sure” to denote 100% certainty nor then do they use unsure to denote perfect uncertainty.

So the answer can’t be “you can make decisions anyway you like” & “this has nothing to do with sure and unsure”, for this answer completely dissolves the basis for the question asked more than it answers it (for the question makes the common sense assumption that sure and unsure are contraries with intermediates).

So I’ll need a new answer that connects a given level of being sure with some decision making criteria and how commonly these two levels and criteria are accepted among people.

I repeat. You are either sure you performed your penance or you are not sure you performed your performance. There is nothing in between.

 

[fakename]

I repeat. You are either sure you performed your penance or you are not sure you performed your performance. There is nothing in between.

What’s the reason there is nothing in between?

I suppose that one can define unsure as being non-sure and so by definition there would be nothing in between. But to what extent is that the mere semantics w/o a metaphysical or psychological explanation? Clearly an answer requires at least one and not just semantics.

For it is obvious that I am right in giving an interpretation of the word “sure” where it admits of varieties of degree. So could you explain how this interpretation is so inessential and misguided that it needs to be replaced with your interpretation? Or perhaps I’m totally wrong and my interpretation is just pure nonsense?

Although I’m willing to think that doing things on good impressions of sureness is an okay thing, still I must see what others think.

But I have not given up on my question and I need an answer as to either my correctness or incorrectness. Essentially elaborate on what you say.

 

[thistle]

What’s the reason there is nothing in between?

I suppose that one can define unsure as being non-sure and so by definition there would be nothing in between. But to what extent is that the mere semantics w/o a metaphysical or psychological explanation? Clearly an answer requires at least one and not just semantics.

For it is obvious that I am right in giving an interpretation of the word “sure” where it admits of varieties of degree. So could you explain how this interpretation is so inessential and misguided that it needs to be replaced with your interpretation? Or perhaps I’m totally wrong and my interpretation is just pure nonsense?

Although I’m willing to think that doing things on good impressions of sureness is an okay thing, still I must see what others think.

But I have not given up on my question and I need an answer as to either my correctness or incorrectness. Essentially elaborate on what you say.

Why do you think nobody else is jumping in on this particular point? Its because there is nothing to elaborate on.
Either you are sure you did the penance or you are not sure. Again, I say to you, there is nothing in between.

 

[Journey322]

Geez, it seems to me that if you are that worried you should just do it again.

Afterward, if you are still concerned, then perhaps you are still carrying feelings of guilt for the sin that caused the need for confession/penance in the first place.

 

[Journey322]

What’s the reason there is nothing in between?

I suppose that one can define unsure as being non-sure and so by definition there would be nothing in between. But to what extent is that the mere semantics w/o a metaphysical or psychological explanation? Clearly an answer requires at least one and not just semantics.

For it is obvious that I am right in giving an interpretation of the word “sure” where it admits of varieties of degree. So could you explain how this interpretation is so inessential and misguided that it needs to be replaced with your interpretation? Or perhaps I’m totally wrong and my interpretation is just pure nonsense?

Although I’m willing to think that doing things on good impressions of sureness is an okay thing, still I must see what others think.

But I have not given up on my question and I need an answer as to either my correctness or incorrectness. Essentially elaborate on what you say.

You seem to be trying very hard to make this a complicated issue. It isn’t. You are either at peace regarding the completion of your penance and absolution or you aren’t. If you have done as the Priest has instructed and still do not have a sense of peace about the issue, perhaps you should be praying for peace or talking with your Priest about the matter.

 

[fakename]

Why do you think nobody else is jumping in on this particular point? Its because there is nothing to elaborate on.
Either you are sure you did the penance or you are not sure. Again, I say to you, there is nothing in between.

Well if it helps I was sure (in some sense) but it was sureness based on a good impression.

Well I’m sure you already know what I’ve been asking for all this time, so I won’t say it again.

Maybe someone else can answer this question.

 

[fakename]

You seem to be trying very hard to make this a complicated issue. It isn’t. You are either at peace regarding the completion of your penance and absolution or you aren’t. If you have done as the Priest has instructed and still do not have a sense of peace about the issue, perhaps you should be praying for peace or talking with your Priest about the matter.

I feel at peace, but I’m not sure if I have the epistemological justification for feeling at peace.