Validity of confessions in Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches

[Gorgias]

I can still see people slipping through the cracks. My sister was going to CCD classes and, for some reason, she didn’t pick up on the fact that Jesus was a part of the Trinity. At that point, she was essentially Jewish or Muslim.

I would have to strenuously disagree with that last statement! As I mentioned in a previous post, our inheritance in Christ has nothing to do with the state of our knowledge – it’s not like Christ will give us a paper-and-pencil test at the end of time in order to determine our fitness for heaven. Your sister, as woefully catechized at that time as she may have been, was not “essentially Jewish or Muslim.” She was (and is!) Catholic – and that identity doesn’t at all depend on the completeness (or lack thereof!) of knowledge of the faith that she possessed!

There are many denominations out there that make the claim you’re making, though: our salvation “depends on Jesus,” they say… when what they really mean is “depends on me” and “depends on (my level of knowing) Jesus.” That’s not at all accurate. Ask yourself: did the people whom Jesus healed in the Gospels, and those whose sins He forgave – did these people know Jesus to be the 2nd Person of the Trinity? Did they know him to be God? (The whole point of the synoptic Gospels is that it is impossible to know Jesus to be God without the experience of His passion, death, and resurrection.) With this in mind, let me ask you: the people Jesus healed & absolved – did they go to heaven?

(If your answer is ‘yes’, then this is the strongest counter-example to your argument. If ‘no’, then I’m left shaking my head – if even those who witnessed Jesus in the flesh are unsaved, what hope have we?)

From my point of view, it seems as if you would say 99% of the people using Jesus’s name in prayer are actually worshipping Jesus, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was actually 75%.

No, I think our disagreement here is more subtle than that. I think that you’re arguing that the 25% are unsaved. I’m asserting that, whether 99% or 75% or 2% really understood the teachings, it’s immaterial – their salvation doesn’t depend on their proficiency with theological knowledge…

 

[truthseekerjay]

I think we established that no one is perfect in knowledge, behavior, attitude, etc. Gorgias, do you remember when I told you that up until my early twenties, I was going to confession, but I really didn’t worship or even love Jesus? Fortunately, I had people speak into my life and helped change this. At this point, I obviously can’t say that my worship or love is perfect, but I now know what worship/love (although imperfect) for Jesus feels like and it made me realize that they were absent back then. From talking to some of my RC friends, it seems like they currently are in the state that I was back then. I can’t tell for sure what’s in their hearts, but if they do indeed lack love and a worshipful attitude towards Jesus and no one speaks to them about it so that they remain like this until death, will absolution continue to happen when they go to confession?

If the answer is yes, what is it that God sees in our hearts (other than fear of punishment) that allows for absolution to happen? From previous posts, it seems like its NOT knowing the identity of Jesus (ie hypothetical pagan worshipper, my sister), NOT desire to know the identity of Jesus (ie hypothetical pagan worshipper), and NOT love/worship for Jesus (ie me).

 

[truthseekerjay]

I want to clarify something on my previous post:
From previous posts, it seems like its NOT knowing the identity of Jesus perfectly (ie hypothetical pagan worshipper, my sister), NOT desire to know the identity of Jesus (ie hypothetical pagan worshipper), and NOT love/worship for Jesus perfectly (ie me).

 

[Gorgias]

I think we established that no one is perfect in knowledge, behavior, attitude, etc.

Right – but, have I misunderstood you? You seem to have been saying that, unless our knowledge/understanding of Jesus meets some (as yet unidentified) minimum standard, absolution seems (to you) to not be able to be happening. Am I misunderstanding what you’ve been asking?

what is it that God sees in our hearts (other than fear of punishment) that allows for absolution to happen?

Contrition. Perfect (i.e., sorrow for our sins for God’s sake) or imperfect (i.e., sorrow for our sins for our own sake) – it doesn’t matter: contrition is what God asks of His people (i.e., the baptized in Christ) in order for absolution to happen.

 

[Jack007]

Contrition. Perfect (i.e., sorrow for our sins for God’s sake) or imperfect (i.e., sorrow for our sins for our own sake) – it doesn’t matter: contrition is what God asks of His people (i.e., the baptized in Christ) in order for absolution to happen.

and sins will be forgiven if you just have perfect contrition, but you cant be sure so go to confession.

 

[truthseekerjay]

Right – but, have I misunderstood you? You seem to have been saying that, unless our knowledge/understanding of Jesus meets some (as yet unidentified) minimum standard, absolution seems (to you) to not be able to be happening. Am I misunderstanding what you’ve been asking?

That’s actually what I’ve been asking. I know we can’t have perfect knowledge of Jesus and we can see examples of that in the controversies about the nature of Christ in Church history, but to completely remove Him from the Trinity (like my sister did), I personally feel that it’s crossing the line. She was essentially worshipping like a Jew or Muslim. I should clarify that this is my personal view and I was just trying to determine where RCs actually believe that the line is crossed. Basically, how different must your view be on the RC God for the deity not to be considered the RC God anymore?

Contrition. Perfect (i.e., sorrow for our sins for God’s sake) or imperfect (i.e., sorrow for our sins for our own sake) – it doesn’t matter: contrition is what God asks of His people (i.e., the baptized in Christ) in order for absolution to happen.

I’m a little confused here. I’m sorry to ask this question again, but for a person praying in Jesus’s name, but having Quetzalcoatl in his heart due to confusion, does he get absolution or not? Now that I think about it, I don’t really understand your answer to this in previous posts. In post #89, your answer seems to be yes to absolution, but in post #100, your answer seems to be no to absolution.

If the answer is yes, then perhaps contrition may be the only thing required, but if the answer is no, isn’t worship of Jesus ALSO required?

 

[truthseekerjay]

Actually, I looked back at post #100. Where you implying that the person using Jesus’s name, but having Quetzalcoatl in his heart due to confusion, was actually worshipping Jesus imperfectly?

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, I looked back at post #100. Where you implying that the person using Jesus’s name, but having Quetzalcoatl in his heart due to confusion, was actually worshipping Jesus imperfectly?

A baptized convert to Christianity, who was trying to worship Jesus but whose catechesis was so deficient that his notions of Jesus were confused, would (I’d assert) still be able to receive absolution, yes.

(A person who was trying to deceive someone – that is, who just tried to make it seem like he was worshipping Jesus, but in reality hadn’t converted in his heart – would be a different story, I believe.)

 

[Gorgias]

That’s actually what I’ve been asking. I know we can’t have perfect knowledge of Jesus and we can see examples of that in the controversies about the nature of Christ in Church history, but to completely remove Him from the Trinity (like my sister did), I personally feel that it’s crossing the line. She was essentially worshipping like a Jew or Muslim.

And, like I said, that “like a Jew or Muslim” characterization is way off. It’s not that she didn’t believe on Jesus, just that she was confused about Him. Still a Christian; still a Catholic; still valid absolution.

Basically, how different must your view be on the RC God for the deity not to be considered the RC God anymore?

Right – I get what you’re saying. Here, you’re making the issue one of knowledge; and, as I’ve been saying, it seems to me that it’s not a matter of knowledge. It’s one of belief. So, where do we “cross the line”? When the intent is to not believe in Jesus. When the intent is to “game the system” or to deceive someone into thinking we have faith, but in reality we don’t – and aren’t trying to attain it.

(When I was in Catholic grade school in the 70s, we didn’t have ‘A, B, C, D, F’ grades; instead, we had two grades – one for achievement (1-4) and another for effort (1-3). (Hey… it was the 70s… ) What you seem to be asking is what’s the minimum ‘achievement’ grade in order to pass; what I’m saying is that the determining factor is the ‘effort’ grade, not the ‘achievement’ grade. Does that help you understand what I’m saying?)

If the answer is yes, then perhaps contrition may be the only thing required

Yes.

 

[Gorgias]

Jay,

BTW – a Scriptural example of this principle can be found at Golgotha. In Luke 23, the penitent thief in no way shows an understanding that Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity (let alone that simply that He is God): he identifies Jesus as an innocent man; he tells the other thief to fear God (not Jesus, whom we’d think he’d mention if he knew Jesus to be God (“have you no fear of God, crucified next to you?”)); and when he addresses Jesus, it’s as a king, not as divine (“when you come into your kingdom”).

And yet, what was Jesus’ response…? “Today you will be with me in Paradise.”

The good thief was “essentially a Jew or Muslim,” according to your notion; and yet, his faith in Jesus – as poorly as he understood who He was – was sufficient to absolve him of his sin and ensure his passage to heaven.

I think it doesn’t get any clearer than that…

 

[FrDavid96]

I wish people would first understand the difference between forgiveness and absolution before posting answers/responses that confuse those two words.

 

[Gorgias]

I wish people would first understand the difference between forgiveness and absolution before posting answers/responses that confuse those two words.

We’re having a hard enough time est the fact that all baptized Catholics may receive absolution, let alone attempting to crack open a discussion on the technical differences between ‘forgiveness’ and ‘absolution’…

In all seriousness, though, Fr David, do you think the difference between the two terms would help Jay reach a resolution to the questions he’s asking? If so, perhaps we might go there with the discussion. Somehow, though, I don’t think the answer to Jay’s questions can be found in the distinction between these two. Do you?

 

[FrDavid96]

We’re having a hard enough time est the fact that all baptized Catholics may receive absolution, let alone attempting to crack open a discussion on the technical differences between ‘forgiveness’ and ‘absolution’…

In all seriousness, though, Fr David, do you think the difference between the two terms would help Jay reach a resolution to the questions he’s asking? If so, perhaps we might go there with the discussion. Somehow, though, I don’t think the answer to Jay’s questions can be found in the distinction between these two. Do you?

Actually, that is the answer. At least, it’s a significant part of the answer.

Absolution is a juridic act of the Church. When a priest (with proper faculties) pronounces absolution, the person is absolved. The sinner is reconciled to the Church.

Under normal circumstances, whenever one is absolved, one is also forgiven; based on God’s promise that He will forgive whenever the priest acts in His name (post-Resurrection “receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive are forgiven…”).

However, if the penitent (so-called) is merely simulating going to confession, the external effects of absolution are still there. Take for example the anti-life politician (prohibited by the bishop from receiving Communion until he repents) who goes to confession and then later admits that in public, and simulates public repentance–however, in his heart he isn’t sorry one bit. He can be admitted to Communion again because he’s been absolved. He fooled the priest, he fooled the bishop, he fooled the Church, he fooled the voters, but he cannot fool God. In this case, he hasn’t been forgiven because he does not want to be forgiven. Nevertheless, if he presents himself to receive Communion the priest gives him Communion, and the priest does so with a clear conscience. The external effects of absolution are there. The juridic act of absolution did indeed occur. He hasn’t been forgiven though because God knows that he never wanted to be forgiven.

The same principle applies to the pagan (or former pagan or revert pagan). The questions “is the pagan absolved?” and “is the pagan forgiven?” are not identical questions. In spite of this, the two concepts of “forgiven” and “absolved” are being exchanged for each other (there’s a word for that, but darned if I can think of it right now because I’m trying too hard!)

 

[truthseekerjay]

FrDavid, which of the two (absolution or forgiveness) ultimately allows a person to receive salvation?

Which of the following people are able to receive absolution and forgiveness during confession? Let’s assume they all have a fear of punishment, are somewhat sorry for their sins, and are in error due to miscommunication/lack of follow up at no fault of their own.

A) the Aztec man who prays using Jesus’s name, but has Quetzalcoatl in his heart
B) my sister who didn’t realize that Jesus was part of the Trinity
C) me in my early twenties, who didn’t truly worship/love Jesus, but simply viewed Him as a judge (similar to a traffic court judge that we have no feelings for)

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, that is the answer. At least, it’s a significant part of the answer.

Right; and we’ve gone over that – one can fool a priest, but not God, and so, if a person simulated contrition, he would hear the words, but his sins would not be forgiven. Yet, Jay’s question tends to fall on the other side of this issue: he seems to want to assert that some standard of catechetical proficiency exist before absolution is efficacious. So, it’s not really ‘absolution’ or ‘forgiveness’ that’s in play here – the question is whether something else must exist for a baptized Catholic to be absolved. The answer, of course, is ‘no’ – in the presence of contrition, in the context of the sacrament of reconciliation, a baptized Catholic is absolved of their sins without other conditions.

The same principle applies to the pagan (or former pagan or revert pagan). The questions “is the pagan absolved?” and “is the pagan forgiven?” are not identical questions. In spite of this, the two concepts of “forgiven” and “absolved” are being exchanged for each other (there’s a word for that, but darned if I can think of it right now because I’m trying too hard!)

The word you’re trying to find is ‘conflated’, I believe.

Regrettably, reading Jay’s response from 8:30pm, it seems everything we’ve managed to do here so far to help Jay understand the efficacy of the sacrament of reconciliation has been undone… :sad_yes:

 

[Gorgias]

which of the two (absolution or forgiveness) ultimately allows a person to receive salvation?

Forgiveness, which comes to baptized Catholics who are contrite, in the sacrament of reconciliation, through the absolution of the priest.

Typically, these aren’t distinct concepts – normatively, where absolution is, there also is forgiveness. We’ve already covered the cases in which there is not forgiveness: an unbaptized person who walks into the confessional, attempting to deceive the confessor; a pagan who does not believe in Christ, etc.

Which of the following people are able to receive absolution and forgiveness during confession? Let’s assume they all have a fear of punishment, are somewhat sorry for their sins, and are in error due to miscommunication/lack of follow up at no fault of their own.

A) the Aztec man who prays using Jesus’s name, but has Quetzalcoatl in his heart

Your example here has always been “a person who is a baptized Catholic, and who is attempting confession validly, but who in all earnest, nevertheless misunderstands Catholic teaching.” That’s what you’re saying here, right? “Quetzalcoatl in his heart” doesn’t mean “he wants to continue being a pagan,” but only “he’s poorly catechized, but baptized, and attempting earnestly to be a Catholic,” right? If so, then yes: absolved and forgiven.

(As we’ve already said, if he’s trying to deceive everyone, including the priest, then no: no forgiveness.)

B) my sister who didn’t realize that Jesus was part of the Trinity

Baptized Catholic; poorly catechized; attempting to receive the sacrament in all earnest: absolution and forgiveness.

C) me in my early twenties, who didn’t truly worship/love Jesus, but simply viewed Him as a judge (similar to a traffic court judge that we have no feelings for)

Baptized Catholic; poorly catechized (or, at least, with a deficient notion of Jesus); earnestly attempting confession: absolution and forgiveness.

Can we move on, now?

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid, which of the two (absolution or forgiveness) ultimately allows a person to receive salvation?

Ultimately, forgiveness. Absolution is the ordinary means to obtaining forgiveness. In the end (I mean The End, the Final Judgement) it’s God’s forgiveness that truly matters. Remember that absolution is the normal way that we receive God’s forgiveness (without being the only way). Therefore, it will certainly matter whether or not we sought and received absolution while on this earth.

Which of the following people are able to receive absolution and forgiveness during confession? Let’s assume they all have a fear of punishment, are somewhat sorry for their sins, and are in error due to miscommunication/lack of follow up at no fault of their own.

A) the Aztec man who prays using Jesus’s name, but has Quetzalcoatl in his heart
B) my sister who didn’t realize that Jesus was part of the Trinity
C) me in my early twenties, who didn’t truly worship/love Jesus, but simply viewed Him as a judge (similar to a traffic court judge that we have no feelings for)

Frankly, all of the above are able to receive absolution and forgiveness.
I can imagine at least one possible scenario where a person in each of those categories can be absolved and forgiven.
In brief, if a person in any of those categories is poorly catechized, yet still sincere in wanting salvation, any one of them is capable of being forgiven and absolved. That does not mean that such situations are normative. It simply means that it is possible.

In any case, I don’t see how this relates to the OP’s question any more.
I’ll be leaving this particular thread.

 

[Gorgias]

In any case, I don’t see how this relates to the OP’s question any more.

Reasonable point. Jay’s original question was rather precisely focused – absolution vis-a-vis non-Catholic Churches. It’s widened since then, turning toward his confusion about absolution in the sacrament of reconciliation in general. Hopefully, we can put to rest the notion that some level of academic theological proficiency (or catechetical clarity) is necessary for reconciliation.

 

[Jack007]

Baptism is what makes someone catholic

 

[Jack007]

Baptism is what makes someone catholic. They who dont believe should not be baptized. they who dont believe anymore are still catholics.