SPLIT: Why do Catholics believe they must go to a priest for confession?

[eddie_too]

the RCC teaches that only mortal sins must be confessed to a priest. for venial sins, we can be reconciled to our Lord through the reception of Holy Communion. so for the sake of clarity and precision, the question should ask why do catholics believe … for the forgiveness of mortal sins.

as a catholic, i believe what the RCC teaches because Jesus gave it and it alone the authority to teach His Gospel.

there is also a very spiritual aspect to the requirement for confessing mortal sins. through the Sacrament of Reconciliation we receive graces that are not available any other way. we catholics want to reconcile to God as best we can. Jesus gave the apostles the power to forgive our sins and reconcile ourselves to Him after we have rejected and rebelled against Him. who are we to turn away from the “ordinary” means established by the Lord to reconcile with Him? if we refuse to use this “ordinary” means of reconciliation, it is not irrational to then question the sincerity of our desire for reconciliation. it has been the experience of the apostles and their successors, that one time reconciliation does not result in an end to our sinful ways and for this reason, the RCC teaches that reconciliation is necessary for every sin after the fact so that we can begin anew our efforts to grow in grace and be a fruitful resident in the Kingdom of God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am still confused on why Catholics believe they ‘have’ to go to confession.

I understand that Jesus told his apostles whoever sins they forgave would be forgiven, and whosoever sins they retained would be retained…however our Lord never said anything about people ‘must’ confess their sins to the apostles.

In fact the only time in the entire Scriptures where we are told anything about confessing our sins to human beings, was in James, “confess your sins to one another”…this would have been a perfect opportunity for St. James to tell us to confess our sins to a priest, but instead he chose to say, confess to one another.

I can find nowhere in the Scriptures or the early church where people were lining up to kneel behind a screen and confess their sins to god in the presence of a priest.

Even in the sinners prayers Jesus taught us to say “Forgive us our sins”…

Just the point I am trying to make here is this, Jesus never told us we MUST confess our sins to a priest for forgiveness. Indeed it does appear he gave us the option, by telling the apostles they could forgive sins, but he didn’t say they and they alone…because who can forgive sins but god alone…

Here are some quotes from the Early Church Fathers that indicate just how early and pervasive the idea of auricular confession really was:

Origen

“[The repentant sinner] does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord." (Homilies on Leviticus, [AD 244]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“Finally, of how much greater faith and more salutary fear are they who…confess to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience” (The Lapsed, [AD 251]).

**Firmilian **

“But what is his error and how great his blindness…who does not remain on the foundation of the one true Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ, can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone, ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall also be loosed in heaven’; and by this, again in the Gospel, when Christ breathed upon the apostles alone, saying to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive any man his sins they shall be forgiven, and if you retain any man’s sins they shall be retained.’ The power of forgiving sins was given to the apostles and the churches which these men, sent by Christ, established and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place” (Epistle to Cyprian 75:16 [Inter A.D. 255-256]).

Aphraates

“If anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public” (Treatises 7:4, [ca. 300’s]).

**Gregory I **

“The disciples receive as their lot the preeminence of celestial judgment, so that, in God’s stead, they retain sins for some and for some they forgive them [John 20:22-23]. . . . Certainly it is now the bishops who hold their place in the Church. They receive the authority of binding and loosing, who have as their lot a degree of governing. It is a magnificent honor, but that honor carries with it a heavy burden.”(Homilies on the Gospels 2:26:4 [A.D. 590-591]).

In light of these quotes, perhaps the question should be:

Why do Protestants believe they don’t have to go to a priest for confession?

 

[UnArmed]

After reading your replies, I have to point out that I was a Roman Catholic for 5 years, a convert from the Southern Baptist church. I went to confession almost monthly. I do understand what it is, and whats its about, and the feeling you get, etc.

Now, having said that, God, the Bible, etc. Never, anywhere, no where, no matter how you want to twist it or sling it said we must confess our mortal sins to a priest. That is a church teaching. Peter didn’t say it, Paul never mentioned it, our Lord never even hinted around that this oral confession of mortal sins to a priest was necessary.

The church imposed this upon its members, thats obvious.

Biblical theology results in this in regards to confession to a priest = “All may, some should, none must.” That is Scripture teaching, that is Church teaching. Period.

Like I have already pointed out several times, Jesus did give his disciples the ability to forgive sins, and yes they had to be told because they weren’t mind readers, absolutely, he did not however set up a mandatory confessional booth for mortal sins.

 

[UnArmed]

Here are some quotes from the Early Church Fathers that indicate just how early and pervasive the idea of auricular confession really was:

Origen

“[The repentant sinner] does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord." (Homilies on Leviticus, [AD 244]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“Finally, of how much greater faith and more salutary fear are they who…confess to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience” (The Lapsed, [AD 251]).

**Firmilian **

“But what is his error and how great his blindness…who does not remain on the foundation of the one true Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ, can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone, ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall also be loosed in heaven’; and by this, again in the Gospel, when Christ breathed upon the apostles alone, saying to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive any man his sins they shall be forgiven, and if you retain any man’s sins they shall be retained.’ The power of forgiving sins was given to the apostles and the churches which these men, sent by Christ, established and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place” (Epistle to Cyprian 75:16 [Inter A.D. 255-256]).

Aphraates

“If anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public” (Treatises 7:4, [ca. 300’s]).

**Gregory I **

“The disciples receive as their lot the preeminence of celestial judgment, so that, in God’s stead, they retain sins for some and for some they forgive them [John 20:22-23]. . . . Certainly it is now the bishops who hold their place in the Church. They receive the authority of binding and loosing, who have as their lot a degree of governing. It is a magnificent honor, but that honor carries with it a heavy burden.”(Homilies on the Gospels 2:26:4 [A.D. 590-591]).

In light of these quotes, perhaps the question should be:

Why do Protestants believe they don’t have to go to a priest for confession?

Can you find me any of them that taught “Unless you confess your mortal sins to god before death you are separated from God for all of eternity.”

Sure the option was there if you needed it, but confession to God alone works just the same for those of us with true faith who knows god forgives us, without having to hear a human being say it.

 

[Jon_S_1]

To say the Bible doesn’t even hint at it is not true. That is your own interpretation that you are using based on your own opinion as primary. You’ve put the lens of your wants and desires on first and then looked at the scripture.

This places you as authoritative.

But it is not you, but “the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth” that has authority. Christ gave the church the authority to bind and loose.

He did not give condition to that, he did not say, “you may bind if it is explicit in what will become the New Testament.” Instead he said “whatever you bind is bound.” Period.

He also (John 15) gave the gift of the Holy Spirit to the church that would “guide them in all truth”.

So you place that lens first and then see the hints in scripture, the discussions in the church fathers, and THE LIVING TRADITION of the church…every church with apostolic lineage, and it becomes very very hard to justify denial in anyway other than by saying, "I don’t like it and I don’t want it…I. I. I.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Can you find me any of them that taught “Unless you confess your mortal sins to god before death you are separated from God for all of eternity.”

Sure the option was there if you needed it, but confession to God alone works just the same for those of us with true faith who knows god forgives us, without having to hear a human being say it.

You will not even find a quote like that in the current catechism because the church has always taught that God can act outside the sacraments and may very well do so. It is up to him to judge the state of souls.

What you do find is explanation of how being in serious sin damages and fractures the relationship with God.

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all** sin. we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us. 1 John 1

If we confess our sins…that’s not even a hint to you?

Jesus knows our sins, how is keeping them inside us confessing? How is telling him in prayer what he knows already “confessing”. Seeking forgiveness sure. Repenting. Ok. But confessing implies saying aloud.**

 

[Jon_S_1]

I would also suggest you read this article in its entirety to see a more holistic view of confession than it seems you currently hold. It also has a lot of history such as the following:

St. Augustine (d. 430) warns the faithful: “Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God has power to forgive all sins” (De agon. Christ., iii).
St. Ambrose (d. 397) rebukes the Novatianists who “professed to show reverence for the Lord by reserving to Him alone the power of forgiving sins. Greater wrong could not be done than what they do in seeking to rescind His commands and fling back the office He bestowed. . . . The Church obeys Him in both respects, by binding sin and by loosing it; for the Lord willed that for both the power should be equal” (On Penance I.2.6).
Again he teaches that this power was to be a function of the priesthood. “It seemed impossible that sins should be forgiven through penance; Christ granted this (power) to the Apostles and from the Apostles it has been transmitted to the office of priests” (On Penance II.2.12).
The power to forgive extends to all sins: “God makes no distinction; He promised mercy to all and to His priests He granted the authority to pardon without any exception” (On Penance I.3.10).
Against the same heretics St. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona (d. 390), wrote to Sympronianus, one of their leaders: “This (forgiving sins), you say, only God can do. Quite true: but what He does through His priests is the doing of His own power” (Ep. I ad Sympron., 6 in P.L., XIII, 1057).
In the East during the same period we have the testimony of St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 447): “Men filled with the spirit of God (i.e. priests) forgive sins in two ways, either by admitting to baptism those who are worthy or by pardoning the penitent children of the Church” (In Joan., 1, 12 in P.G., LXXIV, 722).
St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) after declaring that neither angels nor archangels have received such power, and after showing that earthly rulers can bind only the bodies of men, declares that the priest’s power of forgiving sins “penetrates to the soul and reaches up to heaven”. Wherefore, he concludes, “it were manifest folly to condemn so great a power without which we can neither obtain heaven nor come to the fulfillment of the promises. . . . Not only when they (the priests) regenerate us (baptism), but also after our new birth, they can forgive us our sins” (On the Priesthood III.5 sq.).
St. Athanasius (d. 373): “As the man whom the priest baptizes is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Ghost, so does he who in penance confesses his sins, receive through the priest forgiveness in virtue of the grace of Christ” (Frag. contra Novat. in P.G., XXVI, 1315).

newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

 

[sudy]

I’d just like to add to what everybody else has said,
2 Corinthians 5:18 It is all God’s work; he reconciled us to himself through Christ and he gave us the ministry of reconciliation.

 

[Wesrock]

After reading your replies, I have to point out that I was a Roman Catholic for 5 years, a convert from the Southern Baptist church. I went to confession almost monthly. I do understand what it is, and whats its about, and the feeling you get, etc.

Now, having said that, God, the Bible, etc. Never, anywhere, no where, no matter how you want to twist it or sling it said we must confess our mortal sins to a priest. That is a church teaching. Peter didn’t say it, Paul never mentioned it, our Lord never even hinted around that this oral confession of mortal sins to a priest was necessary.

The church imposed this upon its members, thats obvious.

Biblical theology results in this in regards to confession to a priest = “All may, some should, none must.” That is Scripture teaching, that is Church teaching. Period.

Like I have already pointed out several times, Jesus did give his disciples the ability to forgive sins, and yes they had to be told because they weren’t mind readers, absolutely, he did not however set up a mandatory confessional booth for mortal sins.

How do you know Peter and Paul never said it? That’s a rather huge claim you’re making.

What is true is that the Church has, from its first days, practiced sacramental confession.

 

[Sirach2]

Now, having said that, God, the Bible, etc. Never, anywhere, no where, no matter how you want to twist it or sling it said we must confess our mortal sins to a priest. That is a church teaching. Peter didn’t say it, Paul never mentioned it, our Lord never even hinted around that this oral confession of mortal sins to a priest was necessary.

The church imposed this upon its members, thats obvious.

Biblical theology results in this in regards to confession to a priest = “All may, some should, none must.” That is Scripture teaching, that is Church teaching. Period.

Like I have already pointed out several times, Jesus did give his disciples the ability to forgive sins, and yes they had to be told because they weren’t mind readers, absolutely, he did not however set up a mandatory confessional booth for mortal sins.

:ehh: So your OP was simply bait, after all. :tsktsk:

End of discussion, your mind is made up. Why are you here?

 

[Jon_S_1]

How does he know Jesus never said it!!

“Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain them”

John 21:25

 

[catholic1seeks]

To the OP ~

Just some sporadic notes that may help ~

Remember, early Christianity was not a Bible alone faith. All of its practices, life, and teaching came forth from the first Christian communities. To say that you cannot find this or that aspect of confession in the Bible is the wrong way to approach this subject, in the first place.

Also remember that every single aspect of Christianity, from teaching to practice, develops over time. There were questions about Baptism and the Eucharist that would arise over time, and which were also not explicit from the New Testament. For example, can you baptize infants? Must you immerse only? These questions are not explicitly settled by the NT.

If you are willing to say the Apostles indeed were given the authority to forgive sin, then you tend towards the side of Christianity that naturally has a sacrament of confession in their communities. It is more common to believe that the Apostles were given authority to forgive sin, as well as their successors, then to just say only the Apostles alone had this authority. It seems most Christians either interpret John 20 and Matthew 18 and the like to say something other than the Apostles’ power to forgive sin out of opposition to a sacramental priesthood and the need for confession—or you have Christians, such as the Orthodox and Catholics, who interpret these texts as Christ actually giving human ministers the power to forgive sin.

If you see that Church history, even the early Church, understood church ministers as having sacramental abilities, such as being able to forgive sin, then I would say it is much more natural to lend an ear to the viewpoints of those Christian communities (Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) that believe this.

God does forgive outside of confession. Much of Christian/Catholic history did not even practice confession the same way we do today; the order of forgiveness and penance was different, for example. But the point was always that the bishop or priest symbolized unity with the visible Church. And as Ignatius said in the early 100s, you gotta be in union with the bishop to be in the church.

Mortal sin is not easy to slip into. It involves a willful turning away from God, from love of Him or one’s neighbor. It is utterly against the life of grace and love of God. A mortal sin is much more different than the daily faults that we fall into. Being forgiven of mortal sin means being re-admitted into a life of grace. It is a very significant event. When we are first admitted to a life of grace, we become part of the Church. When we fall away and come back, we are, in some aspect, becoming part of the Church again.

Think of baptism. Baptism is Christ’s chosen way of bringing someone into a life of grace and incorporating that individual into his Body. But that doesn’t mean everyone who is unbaptized is condemned. Similarly, confession to Christ’s ministers is Christ’s chosen way for his followers to receive healing and be incorporated back into the Body. But not going to confession does not mean one is condemned. Still, we need to go the way Christ set up for us.
​

 

[catholic1seeks]

And OP~

Remember that the New Testament scriptures were written in the context of a community already believing, already preaching, and already practicing their Faith. They didn’t get the content of their belief and practice by sitting around a Bible. Scripture was at the center of their liturgies, to be sure. But people closest to Jesus, and people closest to those people, were seen as having the authoritative and authentic teaching. It was in this context that the faith was handed on, and it was in this context that the New Testament was written. To see what the correct understanding of those documents is, we have to look at this bigger context. And when we look at samples from the early church, we see that the early church did in fact believe that Christ gave the Apostles the power to forgive sin, and that this power continued on chiefly in the bishops.

Don’t get so hung up on the “requirement” aspect. As if you MUST confess or ELSE. You yourself recognize that the Apostles had the ability to forgive sin. Pretend for a second that the bishops and priests, their successors and the Church’s current ministers, had this power as well. Wouldn’t it make sense that the life of the Christian would in some degree involve these ministers who had this power?

 

[steve_b]

To the OP ~

Mortal sin is not easy to slip into. It involves a willful turning away from God, from love of Him or one’s neighbor. It is utterly against the life of grace and love of God. A mortal sin is much more different than the daily faults that we fall into. Being forgiven of mortal sin means being re-admitted into a life of grace. It is a very significant event. When we are first admitted to a life of grace, we become part of the Church. When we fall away and come back, we are, in some aspect, becoming part of the Church again.
​

Actually mortal sin is a cinch to commit.

**1859 **Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Some look at that definition and play games with

• “full knowledge” as if this is some mystery to understand. It isn’t.
• or* “complete consent”* as if THAT is as big a mystery as “full knowledge”

When a person is told sex outside of marriage (fornication) is condemned in scripture, then they have all the knowledge they need. All that’s left for one to commit that mortal sin is is to choose voluntarily to commit the sin. That’s it. The CCC anticipates the game playing people do as they try and wiggle out of blame for a “mortal sin”. “Feigned ignorance or hardness of heart” by such people, stops the game playing. That attempted excuse is not only no excuse, but actually increases the voluntary character of the sin they commit.

Is fornication easy or hard to commit? It’s a cinch to commit. Just look how fast and easy that sin happens in society. Then look how many couples live together today, without marriage.

Based on the consequences given for these sins they are all mortal

• Reject a factious (αἱρετικὸν )man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is )perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
• fornication, covetousness……5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
• missing Eucharist deliberately on Sunday, no sacrifice for sin for THEM but a fiery judgement that consumes the adversaries of God.
• immoraliy,(πόρνος ) is selling your inheritance
• Galatians 5: 19 - 21 sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions (διχοστασίαι ), factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven
• Romans 16:17… dividers ( )don’t serve our Lord but themselves. Stay away from them. Satan will soon be crushed under your feet
• Colossians 3: 5-6 immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry, …rath of God is coming
• no sexually immoral (πόρνοι ), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders ( ), 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
• But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
• 2 Thes 1: 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

 

[phil19034]

1. You are working under the impression that EVERYTHING God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, the Apostles, etc said is written down in the Bible.

The Word of God is not limited to just written down Scripture. The Jews and the early Church always understood this. There is the Written Word of God and the Oral Word of God.

1. as someone already wrote: the Epistles were written as letters to Faithful Christians who were already practicing the Faith. Usually, Paul’s letters were addressing issues the local communities were experiencing. There isn’t a book in the New Testament that is equivalent to Leviticus. The Church passed that down orally and via Cannons, Liturgies, Rites, etc.
2. If the Church imposed Confession upon its members, then it was done before the year 424, since that’s when the Persian Church (Church of the East) split off due to claims from Zoroastrian majority in Persia that Christian citizens in Persia were too connected to the Roman Empire.

3a) So if Confession to a Priest was “made up” as you claim, it was made up every earlier and spread across the entire Christian world pretty fast. Logic shows that they must have all been practicing “Confession to a Priest” in order for the Sacrament to still be celebrated similarly in each of the ancient Churches.

1. Additionally - in the early Church, Confession used to be public. So everyone would hear the confession, but it was still the priest or bishop who would grant absolution. Let’s think of it this way… If the confessions were public and if there wasn’t one person in charge of deciding whether the sin of forgiven, what did they do during those public confessions? Vote on it? Argue back and forth? Not say anything and let the person confessing wait for an answer from God? No. The Priest forgave in name of Jesus Christ.
2. The truth is this: Protestants didn’t accept the Sacrament of Holy Orders, as the ancient Churches recognize it. By eliminating Holy Orders, you eliminate the responsibilities the Priests & Bishops received from Jesus. No Holy Orders, not ability to consecrate the Eucharist and no ability to forgive sins in the name of Jesus Christ.

God Bless

 

[Jon_S_1]

1. **
2. The truth is this: Protestants didn’t accept the Sacrament of Holy Orders, as the ancient Churches recognize it. By eliminating Holy Orders, you eliminate the responsibilities the Priests & Bishops received from Jesus. No Holy Orders, not ability to consecrate the Eucharist and no ability to forgive sins in the name of Jesus Christ.**

God Bless

This is 100% THE reason Protestants are not sacramental. Well stated.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Steveb~

One does not slip into mortal sin. One has to freely consent. Many acts we say are objectively, gravely wrong, can be affected by a variety of factors that would greatly diminish the culpability:

The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest. #1860

For example, on masturbation:

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability. #2352

Many, if not most, of the acts we commit are dependent, at least to some degree, on such factors mentioned in the catechism. We are not like the angels, who were able to make a fully free choice of will for or against God.

 

[steve_b]

Steveb~

One does not slip into mortal sin. One has to freely consent. Many acts we say are objectively, gravely wrong, can be affected by a variety of factors that would greatly diminish the culpability:

Quote:
The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest. #1860

For example, on masturbation:

Quote:
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into *account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability. #2352 *

Many, if not most, of the acts we commit are dependent, at least to some degree, on such factors mentioned in the catechism. We are not like the angels, who were able to make a fully free choice of will for or against God.

yes 1860, gives some caveats

**1860 **Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions ***can *also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

• a person unintentionally does NOT know a sin is a mortal.sin. No one has ever shown them the teaching on mortal sin, and they never came across the teaching on their own.
• However, to be unintentional, that ignorance described can’t have their fingerprints all over it. I.E. if they chose not to learn about mortal sin, by rejecting even hearing about it, then their ignorance is NOT unintended but intended. It is then NOT innocent but culpable. The CCC states it this way [1791 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1791)
• Therefore, Can diminish fault, only works for one who is unintentionally (innocently) ignorant. Such ignorance on sin, is kinda hard in today’s society to be ignorant in that sense, when information has never been so easy to access

Also, exception is made (obviously) when an act is NOT freely voluntary, like someone forced against their will. Or if someone is mentally disabled, and can’t retain or understand simple direction.

RE: 2352, the same applies

**2352 **By *masturbation *is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.” To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

Re: affective immaturity, is again talking about psychological malady. It goes on to describe other psychological factors, affecting people with that malady, such as acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that reduce culpability.

Again, [1791 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1791) can’t be dismissed here.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, why do you think that we have infant baptism?

God, the Bible, etc. Never, anywhere, no where, (Edited) said we must baptize infants. Not explicitly.

But we do baptize infants, don’t we? Because the Church does what the Church has always done…despite the fact that it may not have been written down in pages of Sacred Sripture.

Similarly, we confess our sins to a priest because the Church does what the Church has always done…despite the fact that it may not have been written down in the pages of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you find me any of them that taught “Unless you confess your mortal sins to god before death you are separated from God for all of eternity.”

Sure the option was there if you needed it, but confession to God alone works just the same for those of us with true faith who knows god forgives us, without having to hear a human being say it.

On the evening of the Resurrection, Jesus appeared in the midst of the apostles and said to them:

“As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:21-23)

Jesus says, “As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.” Elsewhere in the gospels, Jesus tells the apostles that the Father has sent him into the world with “all authority”. In like manner, Jesus commissions them with the authority He has been given – authority the apostles will need to carry out the mission He has entrusted them with.

Notice that Jesus prefaces his remarks about forgiveness by saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Fr. Dowling rightly notes here that the capacity to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us is a far greater thing than the ability to forgive sins. If the former is possible, the latter does not seem impossible.

Unless we assume that Jesus has also given the apostles the ability to read minds, this passage presupposes that there is a hearing of the sins in order for a judgment to be made as to whether the sins should be forgiven or retained, depending on whether or not the person is truly sorry for his or her sins. Without sorrow for sins, there can be no forgiveness; even God cannot forgive an unrepentant sinner or hardened heart. In saying “if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven”, Jesus precludes the possible argument that He was merely giving the apostles the authority to preach the message of forgiveness. Clearly, the apostles were to judge and forgive or retain the sins of men.

Matthew’s Gospel provides another important passage revealing God’s intention for the power Jesus shares with His Church:

“Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.” (Matthew 9:2-8)

The central focus of this story is not the healing of the paralyzed man but the revelation of the authority of Jesus. Why does this passage indicate that this authority has been passed on to the Church? Verse eight says, “When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.” Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Matthew records correctly that the authority to forgive sins had been given not to a single man, Jesus, but to men. We can know this because he is not quoting the comments of the crowd in this verse but ascribing to them the proper reason for why they were filled with awe. Additionally, we know that Matthew wrote this passage some 20-25 years after the event described thus giving us the assurance that he had plenty of time to reflect upon the truth of what he has just written and had seen the forgiveness of sins through confession in actual practice in the early Church. If this were not the case, then Matthew would not have written as he did.

Paul also talks about the ministry of forgiveness that has been passed on from Jesus. In his second letter to the church in Corinth we read:

“All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:18-20)

Here Paul speaks of both the message and the ministry of reconciliation. Forgiveness of sins is proclaimed as part of the good news; actual reconciliation through confession and absolution is administered through the sacrament. In this way, the Church completes the mission of Jesus by preaching, by baptizing, and by forgiving sins.

(cont.)