The Prodigal Son - Mercy with little Repentance?

[naylordaisy]

The son did not simply come home for funds or his father’s mercy with the intent to head back out into the foreign land. He came home to stay and work with his father. He had resolved to leave that other world behind already, and what more, he did leave it. That isn’t always so easy. In turning his back on that foreign land, we should see him as turning his back on his sins.

I also don’t think the father cut off his confession, or tried to make him feel bad. He saw his son turning his back on sin. He heard his son’s sincerity, and he welcomed him back into his home as a son.

Thank you.
Yes indeed. The prodigal son turned his back on sun and returned to his father and was thus saved. That the father ‘cut off his confession’ was not the intended meaning here, but that the father was so merciful and happy to see his son return that he did ot have to hear a huge confession etc. that the father knew his son was remorseful now and so was instantly welcomed back.

It seems clear that the father understood that his son had come to his senses and was seeking forgiveness.

In the homily I had heard last Sunday, it was indicated that the prodigal son was already forgiven as soon as he left the house with his inheritance.
It’s a bit subtle, would it not be that in fact the father still loved his son even though he was in error. And that the father actually forgives the son, not so much when the son left,
but when the father cold clearly see and understand that the son had turned back to him and was remorseful.

The point is that forgiveness was given when it was clear that that it was being sought.

Being forgiven as soon as the son left the house the first time seems to suggest that
we are all forgiven we just have to admit we messed up. But in admitting that we messed up suggests that true repentance is a trivial matter.

Sorry it is a bit subtle.
For me the homily sounds more protestant in nature, in that it seems to say we are all saved by God’s grace through Christ’s death and resurrection and that we do not need to
be so concerned with the justice of God and so the requirement to be truly remorseful gets weakened.
This is the notion which I am trying to grapple with.

God Bless
Neil

 

[TimothyH]

The boy confessed and returned. That’s all the father asks.

The father returned the boy to the position of a beloved son and didn’t ask about his contrition or whether he really meant it.

The father received him with great joy at his words, 'I have sinned against you and against God." That’s all it took.

-Tim-

 

[MT1926]

Well the father certainly didn’t persuade him from leaving. In fact he showed him the door!

Ok I will not object to that fact the verse doesn’t say the father persuaded him from leaving. But am not sure how you come to the conclusion the father “showed him the door”.

 

[Gorgias]

Well the dad let him leave. “Alright, you wanna leave? Leave!”

And if you could show that from the text, you’d have a case. Since it isn’t in the text… it’s your personal addition to the story.

 

[powerofk]

Okay. First of all, Luke’s gospel has several cases of someone doing the right thing for the wrong reasons (Prodigal Son, Dishonest Steward, etc.).

Regardless, though, the Prodigal Son is a story of what we would call “Hitting Rock Bottom”. And the son realizes that he messed up, but he doesn’t think that what he did is at all forgiveable. For crying out loud, he wished his father’s death (many sources I’ve read stated that to ask for one’s inheritance while one’s father was still alive was akin to saying, “Why aren’t you dead already?”)! Remember, to curse one’s parents in this way was punishable by death under the Mosaic Law.

So, he takes the money and wastes it on who knows what. Certainly, the things he spent it on weren’t good things. And then, like a drug addict, he finds himself in the lowest place he could possibly be, nearly dead. So he decides to turn his life around, but he doesn’t think that he could possibly be forgiven for what he has done. How many of us have felt that we have sinned in a way that is unforgivable?

Regardless, there are three people in the story: the younger son who thinks his sins are unforgivable yet begs for what he believes would be mercy; the father whose mercy extends beyond anyone’s expectations; and the older son who is so indignant about the father’s mercy that he refuses to enter his father’s house when he finds out. The younger son went almost to the gates of Hell, yet came back. We don’t know whether the older son relented after his father talked to him, but he represents the judgmental person who would keep himself out of Heaven due to lack of mercy.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Gorgias:

Well, strictly speaking, no. He realizes the extent of his sins… and he thinks that there’s no possibility of forgiveness. So, all he does is let his father know that he knows he’s messed up – and asks his father to let him rejoin the household, if even only in a reduced capacity. He comes back because he realizes there’s no better deal to be found than in his father’s household. He comes back because he’s learned that the grass isn’t greener on the sinful side of the fence.

Then he finds out that his father is more forgiving and merciful than he ever hoped.

If we want to interpret this in terms of Catholic theology, we see that the boy exhibits imperfect contrition – he simply doesn’t want to experience the pain that sin brings. That’s sufficient for God, and it was sufficient for the father in the parable.

I just read a very good sermon by John Henry Newman for the 4th Sunday of Lent, which addresses this parable very helpfully.

First of all, many commentators hold that in the Near East, in the time of Our Lord, asking one’s father for his inheritance is not so unusual, or damnable (as it may appear to modern ears.)

Second of all, Newman CONTRASTS the contrition of the Prodigal Son with Esau: Saying the Prodigal Son exhibits proper contrition whereas Esau exhibited none.

IOW, the Prodigal Son, admits he has lost his birthright by his foolish behavior, yet wishes to re-enter the safety and goodness of his father’s house. He tells his father he knows he can no longer be his son, but that he would just like to be a lowly servant.

Esau, by contrast, sells his birthright to Jacob with little regard, because he wants some of what Jacob has cooked up, and he (Esau) is hungry. IOW, Esau sold his birthright negligently and foolishly. Then Newman compares how Esau goes to his Father Jacob, as if everything is the same (but he has displeased God by his selling of his birthright.) This is in stark contrast to the Prodigal Son. In both cases we know the outcome. So it is obvious that the Prodigal Son is WORTHY of our emulation and should be seen as a lesson for us.

How often do we lose our birthright (by Baptism) and yet pretend that everything is just fine, and matters not? Are we like the Prodigal Son, or Esau?

 

[naylordaisy]

The story of the prodigal son is a story of confession.

The prodigal son has a two part plan:

I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants.”' (Luke 15:18-19)

The son’s plan is to 1) confess to the father and, 2) work as a slave of the father.

Notice that the father embraces the son but hears his confession. The father does nothing else until the boy confesses. It is only after the boy confesses that the father acts. The boy’s plan is to be a servant or slave. The father however, has no intention of letting the boy carry out part 2 of his plan. This is a metaphor for confession, and of restoration after confession.

The word repentance comes from the Greek word metanoia which means to change your mind or change your way of life. That is what is required - no more and no less. That is exactly what the boy did, changed his ways. He does not need to become a slave. Metanoia is all that is required.

-Tim-

Thank you Timothy.
Your description is how I had come to know the meaning of this parable through many past homilies.
However, last Sunday, this message became confused. Another parishioner said he felt the same.
We heard that the son was already forgiven the moment he left his father’s house with his share of the inheritance.
That all he needed to do was turn back to the father and he would be saved.
In other words, thought the son did confess, very very little was made of this by the priest giving the homily. The message of confession was given very little mention.

But in life we are all thought on the need for confession when we sin or cause pain to others. We have the sacraments including confession to help us do this.

Confession is more than just saying I flunked the test.
It is quite subtle but also very significant.

God Bless

 

[naylordaisy]

I think that, in the case of parables, it’s possible to over-think them. After all, they aren’t deep examinations of character, but rather, simple stories that illustrate a point. Since they’re Scriptural, there are multiple spiritual interpretations that can be drawn from them (i.e., how do they point to Christ? What do they tell us about how we should live our lives?) But, if we try to dive too deeply into the character, we risk missing the point.

That being said, however…

No, he didn’t. The story simply states that the boy left home. Do we want to risk diving too deeply into the father’s psyche? Ok, then…

The boy comes to him and says, “Dad, give me my inheritance now.” In the cultural context in which Jesus tells the story, this is breathtaking – the boy demonstrates a complete and utter repudiation of everything that his father is and what he stands for. We have two choices: either we note that the father realizes that his son is leaving (and therefore, he has the chance to let him leave a pauper or let him leave with resources) or we’re left thinking the father is a complete push-over (“you want your 1/3 of the property? Sure… whatever you say, son…”).

That being said, the father already realizes that his son is leaving – and that he can’t really stop him.

What about the other question, though? Does the son repent, by asking forgiveness?

Well, strictly speaking, no. He realizes the extent of his sins… and he thinks that there’s no possibility of forgiveness. So, all he does is let his father know that he knows he’s messed up – and asks his father to let him rejoin the household, if even only in a reduced capacity. He comes back because he realizes there’s no better deal to be found than in his father’s household. He comes back because he’s learned that the grass isn’t greener on the sinful side of the fence.

Then he finds out that his father is more forgiving and merciful than he ever hoped.

If we want to interpret this in terms of Catholic theology, we see that the boy exhibits imperfect contrition – he simply doesn’t want to experience the pain that sin brings. That’s sufficient for God, and it was sufficient for the father in the parable.

Thank you for your comments.
I can see how it can make sense.

Can we not also not see though that if we find it hard to confess our sins or wrong-doing to others that by the interpretation you describe, we can believe we can be forgiven just by admitting we ‘messed up’.

In the parable, the father knew well that his son was contrite.
But in life, is it so clear to know when a wrong-doer is contrite if all he seems to say is ‘I messed up’.
For all of us sinners, and as Catholics, are we not thought that we should make a good act of contrition when we sin?

God Bless
Neil

 

[naylordaisy]

It’s important to remember that we must forgive in order to be forgiven.

And to be able to forgive, some sort of act is needed that shows forgiveness is being sought. Or is it that forgiveness can be assumed without the need to be contrite.

 

[HelenRose]

Hello everyone,

Wiht last Sunday’s homily on the gospel, our congregation listened to a discourse that said that God is all merciful and that the prodigal son was immediately forgiven the moment he left the father’s home with his share of the inheritance.

Of course, we can try to understand the great mercy of God the Father but with this homily,
I am left thinking that repentance is not really that important.
It is enough to turn to God and being repentant seems not so important.

It is enough to say ‘I flunked’ and that God will forgive me.

Is there a danger here that we can believe that being truly sorry and repentant for our sins
becomes too lightweight?

It sounds as though we are saved already without needing to be that sorry.

Cheers
NEil

To me the beauty of this story is that Jesus leaves it for us to finish. Does the younger son change? Does the older son accept the younger son? Will both sons honor their father’s desire for the welfare of his children?

We answer these questions with our own lives. Do we love our sisters and brothers more than we love money? Are we envious of our brothers and sisters? Do we fight over the family heirloom?

I find it most interesting listening to how people react to this story. You can learn a lot about people by their own reaction to this story. Are they the complacent elder son? Are they the prodigal son? Are they the father? Whose side do they take? Do they think that the father was unfair?

Jesus tells this story in order for us to examine our own lives.

 

[naylordaisy]

How does he not seem repentant to you? He came back to his father, not even sure if he would be allowed to work for a living. He had already been working with pigs–you could hardly get lower than that in Jewish society.

We don’t know what happened to him after the feast. But I think the point here is that the first step is to come back with a contrite heart, and that no one, no matter who they are or what they did, is unworthy or incapable of it. Everything else follows afterwards.

On his son’s return and in his manner of contrition, the father knew his son was seeking forgiveness and so of course forgave him. We are all shown that we must do the same.

But when saying that the prodigal son was already forgiven by the father when he left the house with his share of the inheritance, can be confusing.
I would say that the when the son left the house, the father continued to love his son deeply.
And it was by the son’s return and being contrite before the father, that that the father was able to forgive for he knew clearly that forgiveness was being sought.

Christ said ‘forgive them Father, for they know not what they do’.
Christ asks the Father to forgive sinners. Yet we have the sacrament of confession.
But the act of turning back to the father is indeed a sign of contrition.

In life though we are thought to seek forgiveness for our sins and/or if we cause pain to others. Do we assume others will forgive us if just admit only that we ‘messed up’?

God Bless

 

[naylordaisy]

I’be heard this argument before about the parable of the Prodigal Son. Did he realize the error of his ways? What he did realize is that the world could not provide for him. Without his father, he was poor and destitute. His life was empty and hollow. His needs (and in this case I would like to apply this to spiritual needs) were not being met.

So what does he do? Well, he does NOT try to get by on his father’s name. “So-and-so is my father, so provide for me.” He also did not just write a letter home to his father, pointing to his sonship and asking for money. Both of these actions would be to have his cake and eat it, too. He would have been able to keep living in and of the world of sin, yet content because his father provided for him anyway.

No, what he does do is to literally turn his back on the world of sin and leave it. He goes back to his father. And he doesn’t even do so with pride or trust in his biological relationship. He goes back, humble and willing to simply be a worker on his father’s land, because he knows with his father that his needs will be met.

I think he did realize the error in his ways, if only because he realized that his ways bore no fruit and could not meet his needs (spiritual, at the least). But I’m not even sure it’s necessary to be intellectually aware of the objective immorality of it. He turned his back on sin, left the sin behind, and went to his father. He did not bring that world of sin with him. Does it matter if he had an intellectual epiphany that sin is objectively wrong so long as he realizes what he was doing before was empty and hollow? I don’t think so, so long as he humbly does the will of his father, even if only so that his spiritual needs will be met.

Keep in my, repentance is intended to mean turning your back on sin and turning towards God. It’s not just an intellectual realization.

Thank you.
Yes indeed, certainly this is not to be an intellectual exercise.

I guess what I am trying to come to terms with is our experience of forgiving others when they ask for forgiveness to the comments in the homily that said the father had already forgiven his son as soon as he left the house with the inheritance.

This means we must forgive anyone who sins against us even if they do not seek our forgiveness.
Yet we have the sacrament of confession and purgatory for the atonement of sins.

God Bless

 

[naylordaisy]

Forgiveness is more about the forgiver then it is about the person being forgiven. We are to forgive even when the person doesn’t ask for it or show any remorse.

Yes, that is true.
So therefore we are all saved, and will be welcomed into Heaven by God even if we never seek His forgiveness for being sinful.

Yet we have hell and purgatory to be concerned with.
How should we respond to this?

God Bless

 

[naylordaisy]

I really like the story of the prodigal son. It has some great meaning to me, since my son has become a once saved always saved evangelical. Now I don’t believe there is an official church teaching on these verses, so this is what it means to me.

If you read it a few times you can see some deeper meaning into the story Jesus is telling us, and how it refutes the once saved always saved mind set. As you mentioned and like our Priest said the Father in the story is God the Father and we are his sons. I can readily agree that God the Father immediately forgave him the moment he left with the inheritance. However, forgiveness does not equal salvation. He still walked away. What if the great famine never arose in that country? He might have been able to continue living loosely and keep his back turned away from the Father. How would this forgiveness benefit him if he never returned to receive it. My son would say if this happened he was never saved to begin with. But how can that be true? Jesus makes the point that he was already a son of the Father and was therefor saved prior to walking away.

Not sure about your question here. I read from the story that the son did repent. Not just once but twice. Remember this is God the Father, he hears our thoughts as well as our words. In verse 18 & 19 he thinks to himself the apology he will give to his Father, and then says it aloud in verse 21. Now verse 20 is an important verse. If you notice, after the son decided to come back (repentance) the Father ran out to meet him. Jesus doesn’t say the Father sent his servants into the far off country to find him and drag him back to salvation, the son had to repent and decide on his own to come back.

Verse 22 is a great verse in my opinion. When I read it, I think about purgatory. The son was living with pigs, just imagine how dirty and smelly he must have been. The Father doesn’t just have his servants prepare the feast and start the celebration. He could have, but imagine being the son covered in pig excrement and smelling something awful. Would you enjoy the feast in that state? I wouldn’t. So the loving Father has his servants “purge” him of his defilement and redress him in the best rob so he will be more comfortable at the feast and not have to constantly be reminded of what he did. That thought gives me so much more peace of mind than to convince myself that I am once saved always saved and am guaranteed to sit with God in eternity with the memory of unpurged sins on my soul.

Now Jesus finishes the story by speaking of the elder son. This part of the story is a bit confusing, because I always agreed with the elder son. I think what Jesus is getting at here is showing us that just because the elder brother followed the rules, his denial of the younger brother coming back shows his envy. Basically he is saying I didn’t do that therefor I deserve more and he deserves less. This tells us that the elder son was not aware of the grace he had from being at home with the Father. Jesus speaks of envy again in Matthew 20, the parable of the workers, where the ones that worked an hour got paid the same as the ones that worked all day.

Just my humble opinion

God Bless

Thank you very much.
The idea came to me that you should have been giving the homily last Sunday

It just seems to me that we should say sorry when we have sinned and be sincere about it. The father in the parable knew his son was seeking forgiveness even though he was already forgiven when he first left the house.

But with the homily given last Sunday, saying sorry seemed to be a minor act.
I don’t mean that the forgiver needs to make a song and dance about how forgiveness is being sought, but it seams that some effort is needed in general.

God Bless

 

[Wesrock]

The Father is always open to forgiveness. He does not harden himself against us, and he always loves us. However, that does not mean we all will reside in our father’s house.

The prodigal son was not carried off back home by the Father. He had to turn away and come home. It was up to him about whether he would return or not. Likewise, we must also turn to God to live as part of his family.

The Father does not hold grudges that he has to later let go of. He is always willing to welcome us back home, but we can leave if we wish, and he does not force us to return. Likewise, there is a real risk of never being able to come to God’s house if we do not seek it while we are able to. When we do return, there will be great welcome and rejoicing. But we may still need discipline at some point to better our character, for God is just. The parable of the prodigal son does not speak on this point specifically. However, the main intent of the parable was to show the Pharisees how God welcomes anyone back to Him, and how they, like the elder son, did not deserve special treatment.

And for us, well, sometimes I’m the younger son. Other times still, I’m the older.

 

[naylordaisy]

But notice he didn’t say “I’m sorry.” He said,“Hire me as one of your servants.”

Yes this is the issue which I am trying to raise if and when we face such a situation of either seeking forgiveness of forgiving someone.

We are to forgive even if an offender does not explicitly ask for it.
In the homily, the father forgives as soon as the son left the house.
Is that only what is required to gain salvation, that wronged forgive?

Why then is there the sacrament of penance, purgatory and hell.

Somehow the forgiver in any situation where there is a wrong must know that the wrong-doer has repented and turned back. In the parable this is clear to the father.

But if in life there is no turning back by a wrong-doer even if the wronged forgive the
wrong-doer at a distance or as soon as the wrong is committed, can the wrong-doer expect to get to heaven and achieve salvation?

God Bless

 

[HelenRose]

Yes this is the issue which I am trying to raise if and when we face such a situation of either seeking forgiveness of forgiving someone.

We are to forgive even if an offender does not explicitly ask for it.
In the homily, the father forgives as soon as the son left the house.
Is that only what is required to gain salvation, that wronged forgive?

Why then is there the sacrament of penance, purgatory and hell.

Somehow the forgiver in any situation where there is a wrong must know that the wrong-doer has repented and turned back. In the parable this is clear to the father.

But if in life there is no turning back by a wrong-doer even if the wronged forgive the
wrong-doer at a distance or as soon as the wrong is committed, can the wrong-doer expect to get to heaven and achieve salvation?

God Bless

The son is forgiven by the father the day he leaves but… he still has to come home by himself. The father waited for him to return. He did not go and get him. The son needed to repent and find his way back home to accept his father’s forgiveness.

 

[Mintaka]

If I, as a human being, forgive you, also a human being, I don’t have to know anything about your frame of mind or contrition. I’m not approving what you did; I’m probably not forgetting what you did. I’m just saying, “I will not hold a grudge against you.”

If God forgives someone their sins, OTOH, He has the power to wipe those sins from existence. He won’t do it unless the person is at least a little bit contrite, which He is in a position to know. The effects of your sins remain, but you are clean of the sin.

So there are two different kinds of forgiveness, and two different kinds of contrition requirement.

 

[MT1926]

Thank you very much.
The idea came to me that you should have been giving the homily last Sunday

It just seems to me that we should say sorry when we have sinned and be sincere about it. The father in the parable knew his son was seeking forgiveness even though he was already forgiven when he first left the house.

But with the homily given last Sunday, saying sorry seemed to be a minor act.
I don’t mean that the forgiver needs to make a song and dance about how forgiveness is being sought, but it seams that some effort is needed in general.

God Bless

Thanks for the kind words. I did not hear the homily you heard but in my mind when you say “But with the homily given last Sunday, saying sorry seemed to be a minor act.” a few things came to mind. Not sure if this is what the Priest was getting at but from God’s perspective our confession or saying sorry is a minor act. He doesn’t love us any more or less based on our confession.

Confession and forgiveness is a gift that God has given to us to make us better, not to make us be more loved in his eyes.

On confession, I remember a caller once ask why we need to confess to a Priest when the bible says to go directly to God. I think it was Tim Staples answered with all kinds of biblical evidence, but what he said in the end made the most sense to me. He basically said that confession to a Priest is a gift. Have you ever done something that you were ashamed of and you felt so bad you right away confessed it to God. I have, what a relief the pain goes away. But even with that confession, directly to God, my conscience wasn’t clear. It would be a week later and something reminds me of what I did and boom there is that feeling again. So confess it again and like a boomerang it is back again. Finally, I make the time see my Priest we talk it through, he advises me, he directs me and he absolves me. Wow what a feeling. The next time I hear about that sin again I look at it with a clear conscience and say, “I beat you”. When I tried doing it on my own I made it a minor act and it didn’t work. Involving the Priest turned it into a major act on my part. So with that being said, the confession or saying sorry, is and should be a big deal for the confessor but shouldn’t be an all out requirement for the forgiver.

You also brought up forgiveness. This is also a gift from God. Not so we can be forgiven, but to learn the true power of forgiveness. Have you ever had the opportunity to forgive someone who has gravely wronged you and never said they were sorry? It just eats away at you, you go over what happened over and over. You can’t sleep you can’t concentrate, you just want to know why someone would ever do that to you. Now God gives us a choice. We can let this eat away at us for years or we can forgive and put it behind us. Now forgiving doesn’t mean forgetting, it means giving it up to God and trusting that he will make the best out of the bad situation that we are in.

God Bless

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

And if you could show that from the text, you’d have a case. Since it isn’t in the text… it’s your personal addition to the story.

Well it’s a very believable action. Any father would probably have done what I think the father in the story did. In that time fathers had complete authority over their kids. Asking for the father’s inheritance while he was alive would be the same as asking him, “Hey, can you die so I can get your property, Dad?”