Reconciliation/Confession

[Michael19682]

The Priest’s words at confession time refer to “reconciling the world to himself”.
Reconciliation is obviously the most very important sacrament to understand and practice.
Part of my forthcoming questions arises from my a personal attempt to be theologically forward thinking as well as know if reconciliation is one-way or two-way.
Once the Priest begins giving absolution, it seems only reasonable to conclude that like at the “reconciling [of] the world,” a person might not agree with God’s plan for reconciliation, and refuse it. He might not say Amen, or go deeper into hatred than denial.
Would such a stance invalidate the confession’s absolution and/or negate the reconciliation offer/prayer?
Are absolution and reconciliation the same thing?

I’m not personally immobilized on my spiritual journey by the confusion at all,
but nevertheless it is a question whose answer would help me in a personal quagmire.

 

[LaetenturCaeli]

Would such a stance invalidate the confession’s absolution and/or negate the reconciliation offer/prayer?
Are absolution and reconciliation the same thing?

I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking here.

Would refusing God’s forgiveness invalidate one’s confession? Yes, I would think so. It does defeat the purpose of the whole thing.

Reconciliation is just another term for Confession. I think it’s used because it’s seen as being a less-intimidating word, one that has perhaps less baggage. It can also be a bit limited, however, since it kind of insinuates that only people who need to be reconciled with God and the Church—that is, people who are not in a state of grace—need bother with going.

But maybe none of this is relevant to what you’re asking about.

 

[Michael19682]

I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking here.

Would refusing God’s forgiveness invalidate one’s confession? Yes, I would think so. It does defeat the purpose of the whole thing.

Reconciliation is just another term for Confession. I think it’s used because it’s seen as being a less-intimidating word, one that has perhaps less baggage. It can also be a bit limited, however, since it kind of insinuates that only people who need to be reconciled with God and the Church—that is, people who are not in a state of grace—need bother with going.

But maybe none of this is relevant to what you’re asking about.

If a person develops impenitence during or shortly after the absolution, or even once he confesses – what happens to the absolution? Is he reconciled to the Church or not?

 

[1ke]

Huh?

 

[Gorgias]

If a person develops impenitence during or shortly after the absolution, or even once he confesses – what happens to the absolution? Is he reconciled to the Church or not?

Maybe I’m reading into what you’re saying, but…

it sure seems like you’re saying that someone in the confessional, hearing the prayer of absolution, suddenly decides that they really aren’t sorry for their sins or aren’t really gonna try to avoid them. On the face of it, that seems somewhat odd. Can you flesh out this scenario a bit for us? What is it in the prayer of absolution (which I’ll quote below) that causes this hardness of heart? What is the nature of this ‘relapse’?

“God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of His son, has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit.”

So… what’s here – in the assertion that Christ’s death and resurrection has opened the possibility of salvation for us – that leads to an “impenitence”? Are you trying to suggest that a person might think “oh, well… if Christ’s resurrection earned reconciliation, then I don’t need to be here right now!”…?

 

[Michael19682]

Maybe I’m reading into what you’re saying, but…

it sure seems like you’re saying that someone in the confessional, hearing the prayer of absolution, suddenly decides that they really aren’t sorry for their sins or aren’t really gonna try to avoid them. On the face of it, that seems somewhat odd. Can you flesh out this scenario a bit for us? What is it in the prayer of absolution (which I’ll quote below) that causes this hardness of heart? What is the nature of this ‘relapse’?

“God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of His son, has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit.”

So… what’s here – in the assertion that Christ’s death and resurrection has opened the possibility of salvation for us – that leads to an “impenitence”? Are you trying to suggest that a person might think “oh, well… if Christ’s resurrection earned reconciliation, then I don’t need to be here right now!”…?

You accurately summarize my hypothetical scenario in your 1st paragraph. Odd, yes. But possible, yes. I’m not suggesting there is any reason for this. But what if it should happen? I know what the Priest says.
In psychology there is something called “spontaneous recovery”. If a person has been conditioned by life and/or a prior community to abhor the notion of confession to a clergy member, as many are reported to, but converts to Catholicism. What happens if the extinguished response of abhorring reemerges and asserts itself just as I stated?
It is a simple question even understood without reference to behavioral psychology.
I understand your avoidance and need for clarification. But my OP and its original two questions have not been answered by anyone yet. If there is no answer, ok then.

 

[Gorgias]

You accurately summarize my hypothetical scenario in your 1st paragraph. Odd, yes. But possible, yes. I’m not suggesting there is any reason for this. But what if it should happen?

OK. So, the entirety of your question is the hypothetical situation in which a person enters into the confessional with sorrow for his sins and a desire to avoid them in the future, but that, as the prayer of absolution is being prayed, he internally ‘recants’ of his contrition, based on a psychological condition which causes him to act contrary to his will?

I think I would respond that such a condition would not be held against the penitent, and the sacrament would be valid.

 

[Michael19682]

OK. So, the entirety of your question is the hypothetical situation in which a person enters into the confessional with sorrow for his sins and a desire to avoid them in the future, but that, as the prayer of absolution is being prayed, he internally ‘recants’ of his contrition, based on a psychological condition which causes him to act contrary to his will?

I think I would respond that such a condition would not be held against the penitent, and the sacrament would be valid.

Maybe its not important to refine this, but…spontaneous recovery is not a bona fide psychological condition in and of itself. A child has a bad habit of swearing. The students at school goad him into and encourage it (I believe Saint Augustine had a similar difficulty with regards to wild behavior before he was baptized). He stops swearing for many years after he is thrown out of his house at 17. Then, suddenly, and without obvious trigger, he begins to swear like he is 15, or 17, again – except that he is now 35 yrs old, or 23, or 27 yrs old. Capice?

 

[Michael19682]

I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking here.

Would refusing God’s forgiveness invalidate one’s confession? Yes, I would think so. It does defeat the purpose of the whole thing.

Reconciliation is just another term for Confession. I think it’s used because it’s seen as being a less-intimidating word, one that has perhaps less baggage. It can also be a bit limited, however, since it kind of insinuates that only people who need to be reconciled with God and the Church—that is, people who are not in a state of grace—need bother with going.

But maybe none of this is relevant to what you’re asking about.

Is reconciliation the same as absolution?
I mean, if he tells no one of this disbelief in the Sacrament’s power – can he still find pardon and peace through the ministry of the Church? The verbiage on the surface looks like pardon and peace refer to reconciliation, whereas the absolution he receives is “pardon” the expression, “no one else’s business”? (Mt 20:15)

 

[Michael19682]

Maybe I’m reading into what you’re saying, but…

So… what’s here – in the assertion that Christ’s death and resurrection has opened the possibility of salvation for us –

“the possibility of salvation” – that is reconciliation?
And the holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins? – only a priest can forgive?
If pardon and forgive are the same thing, pardon designated as Church and forgive as holy Spirit, where does that place “absolve”, the word the priest uses for his role in the labor of the Sacrament?

 

[Gorgias]

Maybe its not important to refine this, but…spontaneous recovery is not a bona fide psychological condition in and of itself. A child has a bad habit of swearing. The students at school goad him into and encourage it (I believe Saint Augustine had a similar difficulty with regards to wild behavior before he was baptized). He stops swearing for many years after he is thrown out of his house at 17. Then, suddenly, and without obvious trigger, he begins to swear like he is 15, or 17, again – except that he is now 35 yrs old, or 23, or 27 yrs old. Capice?

Capisco.

Yet, this ‘refinement’ doesn’t change the situation: a person ‘reverts’, due to some psychological trigger, in a way that is at odds with his expressed will. That doesn’t invalidate the sacrament. At most, it might mean that he avoids future opportunities for confession, but at that particular moment, the sacrament is valid and efficacious.

 

[Gorgias]

“the possibility of salvation” – that is reconciliation?

Christ’s death and resurrection has opened the gates of heaven. In this act, God and man were reconciled – the gates of heaven (which had been closed due to sin) were now opened. Therefore, if we accept Him and follow His commandments, we will be saved.

When we sin, we turn away from the possibility of salvation. Jesus tells the apostles that when they forgive sin, He forgives it. Therefore, when we approach the sacrament of reconciliation, our sins are absolved.

And the holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins? – only a priest can forgive?

Only a priest has been given (at his ordination) the proxy that Christ gave His apostles in John 20:23 to forgive sins.

If pardon and forgive are the same thing, pardon designated as Church and forgive as holy Spirit, where does that place “absolve”, the word the priest uses for his role in the labor of the Sacrament?

‘Absolution’ is the term that we use to describe the Church’s act of forgiveness of sins that Christ authorized His apostles to do. (His apostles, using the authority given them, named successors, and they authorized their co-workers – priests – to have the same authority to do what Christ commanded in John 20:23.)

Absolution, strictly speaking, means what John 20:23 says: the minister of the Church, having been given authority by Christ to forgive sins, does so, and by virtue of that assertion, the sins are forgiven by God.

 

[Michael19682]

Capisco.

Yet, this ‘refinement’ doesn’t change the situation: a person ‘reverts’, due to some psychological trigger, in a way that is at odds with his expressed will. That doesn’t invalidate the sacrament. At most, it might mean that he avoids future opportunities for confession, but at that particular moment, the sacrament is valid and efficacious.

I’m of the same mind if the response implies that expressed will is only verbal; and furthermore that the “direction” or “intent” of the will does not change so capriciously. If we infer that absent a trigger, one doesn’t ask for absolution and then regret it a moment or two later.

 

[Billy112]

I’m of the same mind if the response implies that expressed will is only verbal; and furthermore that the “direction” or “intent” of the will does not change so capriciously. If we infer that absent a trigger, one doesn’t ask for absolution and then regret it a moment or two later.

In any case, I’m not sure that someone acting upon psychological distress due to past conditioning (or anything for that matter) would be considered having fully consented, which is, I’m sure you know, one of the requisites for a sin to be mortal, to whatever they did.

 

[Gorgias]

In any case, I’m not sure that someone acting upon psychological distress due to past conditioning (or anything for that matter) would be considered having fully consented

This is where I was going with it, as opposed to the “verbally expressed will” notion. Psychological distress wouldn’t imply consent to the withdrawal of contrition…

 

[Michael19682]

This is where I was going with it, as opposed to the “verbally expressed will” notion. Psychological distress wouldn’t imply consent to the withdrawal of contrition…

Our modern day notion is that the psychological is also physical. Sooner or later, we will have an understanding of the neurological basis of all psychological distress. This discussion teeters on the edge of saying that 1 Peter 4:1 renders absolution moot – which I do not believe. After all is said and done, everything called mortal sin has distress as its cause? It wasn’t in the OP, I know, but are we here replacing the Sacrament of Reconciliation with Anointing of the Sick:

"The early Church Fathers recognized this sacrament’s role in the life of the Church. Around A.D. 250, Origen wrote that the penitent Christian “does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine . . . [of] which the apostle James says: ‘If then there is anyone sick, let him call the presbyters of the Church, and let them impose hands upon him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him’” (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4). " taken from catholic.com/tracts/anointing-of-the-sick

 

[Vico]

The Priest’s words at confession time refer to “reconciling the world to himself”.
Reconciliation is obviously the most very important sacrament to understand and practice.
Part of my forthcoming questions arises from my a personal attempt to be theologically forward thinking as well as know if reconciliation is one-way or two-way.
Once the Priest begins giving absolution, it seems only reasonable to conclude that like at the “reconciling [of] the world,” a person might not agree with God’s plan for reconciliation, and refuse it. He might not say Amen, or go deeper into hatred than denial.
Would such a stance invalidate the confession’s absolution and/or negate the reconciliation offer/prayer?
Are absolution and reconciliation the same thing?

I’m not personally immobilized on my spiritual journey by the confusion at all,
but nevertheless it is a question whose answer would help me in a personal quagmire.

The penitent must have at least imperfect contrition and the intention of sinning no more, in addition to confessing in number and kind all mortal sins that are remembered and not already confessed since baptism. If the one confessing has a change of intention such that the conditions are not met, then the sacrament is not received.

Absolution is the act by which a qualified priest, having the necessary jurisdiction, remits the guilt and penalty due to sin.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1422 “Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God’s mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example, and by prayer labors for their conversion.”

1445 … Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.