Reconciliation with Brother

[imo]

Hello. In Matthew 5 23 we read that we must reconcile with our brother with urgency. However, what I can’t grasp is how broad is the range of situations that requires reconciliation. For example, if I say something in a rough, rispid, arrogant manner to someone, but afterwards we continue our lives ok and treat each other normally, possible even forget it with time, should we really talk about it?

It seems to me that if I need to reconcile with anyone I said something out of time, it would be kind of ridiculous, people wouldn’t probably understand why I am digging up something from the past.

My understanding of this passage is that we must reconcile when there are permanent pain and anger, that must be resolved or civilized relationship will be impossible or an anger that could lead to violence, revenge or worst.

Am I right?

 

[SunSeeker]

Kind of sounds like no reconciliation is needed here if there truly is no hurt.

Where it has been forgotten with time, it might be more painful to bring it up again.
I know I’ve had times when I’ve been hurt by words, started to heal, then been reminded of how hurt I felt when it was mentioned again.

This assumes, that over time, ALL the wounds have healed.

You can find ways to make sure they know you want to be forgiven. I wouldn’t find it weird if someone said to me “Look…way back _____, I said _____. I was thinking about it lately and realized I never apologized”.

 

[Daniel27]

I know this is a really difficult thing to do but one of the implications of this teaching is to reconcile after the debate while it still has an effect on all involved parties. It’s difficult to do because it is precisely this moment, our sinful pride is at its peak in saying that we are in the right.

Ultimately, I don’t think God cares massively if it was our turn to pay for that particular lunch or not; the focus is on if you hurt your brother or not. If yes, it’s time to reconcile.

Kind of sounds like no reconciliation is needed here if there truly is no hurt.

Where it has been forgotten with time, it might be more painful to bring it up again.
I know I’ve had times when I’ve been hurt by words, started to heal, then been reminded of how hurt I felt when it was mentioned again.

This is a pretty good rule of thumb to follow

 

[imo]

How could I know if the other part forgot?

 

[Aquinas11]

For example, if I say something in a rough, rispid, arrogant manner to someone, but afterwards we continue our lives ok and treat each other normally, possible even forget it with time, should we really talk about it?

Yes since we can’t say for sure the other person wasn’t harmed, simply because they (outwardly) seem ok. Some people seem ok while they’re still hurt. It should be more based on what we do, rather than how someone reacts.

I think it says “with urgency” since its always easier to reconcile sooner rather than later. The analogy I hard is apologizing is like cleaning up dishes after you eat - the sooner you do it, the easier it is.

 

[SunSeeker]

It’s hard for any of us relpying to say, as we don’t know the details.

The rule is for reconciling and forgiving, not just apologizing. Just because someone was stung by our words, doesn’t mean we aren’t reconciled until we clarify that we are. We can occasionally make amends without the direct words “I’m sorry”. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t apologize quickly if needed! But just as words of apology might not fully take away the hurt, if the hurts been mostly buried by time, it might be best to do something to strengthen your bond with them now in the present rather than dig up old wounds.

Picture them standing next to the gates of Heaven. If they are asked if you need to make amends with them for anything before you can enter, what would they say?

Yes, saying you’re sorry is crucial in most present situations. But again, the point is to be reconciled, to be bonded again, not the apology itself. With other humans, it’s not always as formal as confession.

There’s probably different answers for different situations. If you said their preference on something was stupid, well that’s different than calling them stupid etc. I’d definitely bring up the latter to apologize. The former, well that depends.

 

[imo]

So, everyone I offended in my life and I remember I must apologize? Is it really the teaching of the Church?

 

[Daniel27]

Some people seem ok while they’re still hurt. It should be more based on what we do, rather than how someone reacts.

Surely we can’t be expected to do what we don’t know? If I don’t know a test is happening, how can I be expected to revise for it? If I don’t know what God’s laws are, how can I be expected to follow them? If I don’t know if a person is injured or not (without them expressing it directly or indirectly), how can I be expected to reconcile with them?

I think it says “with urgency” since its always easier to reconcile sooner rather than later.

This, I agree with, but I’m not sure about the first part.

 

[Aquinas11]

Surely we can’t be expected to do what we don’t know?

No I said it is based on “what we do”, thus if you and I were hanging out and I yelled at you with anger, I should apologize even if you don’t seem to be offended.

 

[Aquinas11]

So, everyone I offended in my life and I remember I must apologize? Is it really the teaching of the Church?

You gave a specific example (“if I say something in a rough, rispid, arrogant manner to someone”), that’s what I’m discussing. I said our actions determine whether we apologize, not how someone reacts ("…everyone I offended…").