What is culpability?

[Vico]

John 12:
44 And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. 45 And whoever sees me sees him who sent me.

49 For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak.

There is no need to tease apart the trinity, Vico. It is a mystery. The Son speaks for the Father, yet when we see Him we see the Father. Surely you are not saying that Jesus did not forgive those who hung Him; the passage references in my Bible go to Jesus’ call to forgive our enemies.

have a great Sunday.

I think he did and gives an example for mankind to be like him, but to be accurate, Jesus spoke as the Son of God and as the Son of Man, for example (Mark 13:31-32):
31 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.
32 But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.

 

[OneSheep]

I think he did and gives an example for mankind to be like him, but to be accurate, Jesus spoke as the Son of God and as the Son of Man, for example (Mark 13:31-32):
31 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.
32 But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.

What interesting words to reflect on for Trinity Sunday! I love it when things work out this way.

Thanks, Vico.

 

[Vico]

I think he did and gives an example for mankind to be like him, but to be accurate, Jesus spoke as the Son of God and as the Son of Man, for example (Mark 13:31-32):
31 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.
32 But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.

Also remember that I posted on invincible ignorance:

vico:

But actually Jesus asks his Father to forgive them, he does not say he forgives them. Many thought he was a sorcerer, they were invincibly ignorant. And then shortly he descends into the underworld to deliver the Gospel and free the just, but not the unjust.

His example to us is to pray to the Father for others. Those that are invincibly ignorance sin objectively but not subjectively, therefore there is no imputation and no eternal punishment. Yet he shortly descended into the underworld to bring the Gospel and release the just (not the unjust). The unjust are not forgiven.

 

[OneSheep]

The unjust are not forgiven.

Yes, this is an image of God presented in the Gospel, but also presented is the image of God who forgives unconditionally, as I explained above. Both images are supported in the Gospel, and IMO both should remain supported in the modern Church.

However, so as not to mislead, unconditional forgiveness should not be equated with presumption, that is, the presumption that all people go to heaven. Hell is still a choice.

 

[Vico]

Yes, this is an image of God presented in the Gospel, but also presented is the image of God who forgives unconditionally, as I explained above. Both images are supported in the Gospel, and IMO both should remain supported in the modern Church.

However, so as not to mislead, unconditional forgiveness should not be equated with presumption, that is, the presumption that all people go to heaven. Hell is still a choice.

God unconditionally loves, the the individual free will of angels and humans determines the eternal state of each soul. And we read that when Jesus asked his Father to forgive, is was not a grant but a request. Do to the conditional nature of forgiveness, we will not be properly disposed to receive absolution if we will not forgive (in the human sense not the divine) offenses against us, as shown by Mark 11:25:
“And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Ironically, your call for clarity on boundaries and dynamics is unclear and somewhat appears boundless! Please, find something I wrote that you find too unclear or boundless and ask for clarification, I would be happy to do so!

**Boundary = whether God. Whether the victim. Whether the perpetrator. If oneself, whether one is the victim or the perpetrator or a bystander. Also, in a big situation, whether one is the victim of a different hurt than the next person.

Dynamics = the force of the content of the relationship. In your case, implied moralising and getting heavy with people that have got enough crosses without you adding to them by your vagueness.

As I have exactly stated numerous times, your entire article is unclear, for exactly the reasons stated. I thought at the time I was quite bold to accuse you of baiting and switching, but now I see that was fairly neutral. You aren’t doing it deliberately though, it’s just a habit.

If you are going to get these articles put in the parish bulletin, you need to devote completely separate chapters to completely separate topics. Guanophore’s 135 is spot-on.

Vico is valiantly responding to your exact points exactly as you make them. Vico expects you to maintain good boundaries just as much as Guanophore and I do - see the quote from Vico in my post 131.**

Yes, this is true, he did not state such a “hard and fast rule”. Would you like one?

You are the one that has been setting up hard and fast rules by muddling up your readers’ and listeners’ thinking and no I don’t think they would like one of your hard and fast rules.

I think love should be our guide, right? When we have come to the point where we can prayerfully approach a person with love, I think that is our calling.

I’m going to throw that full-on in your face. Love and prayer mean attention to boundaries and dynamics. Only.

He definitely promoted the idea that God’s love is demonstrated through many sources. Holding grudges, refusing to forgive, compromises our own realization of God’s forgiveness. It’s something like, “if you want to feel forgiven, then forgive.” Some might wince at my use of “feel” there, my wording could be better.

That has a place sometimes but isn’t the main point.

What does that mean, “my feelings don’t need rescuing”? Also, the second sentence is unclear to me. God delaying a man’s move? Sounds like puppetry. I’m confused.

I’m ahead of you in my explorations. Catch up steadily.

This is from your 52, a quote from you, then me, then you:

Quote:

You: I agree with Pope Francis, He always waits for us, understands us, and forgives us.

Me: That will come over fine as long as your pieces concretise what they are about at any point.

You; Yes, perhaps it should accompany all my posts, like the avatar. I’ve never done those, but it’s a good idea.

It is difficult to communicate tone in print.

unquote

**But no, it isn’t.

And you can start doing this (as you go, not like an avatar), because you yourself have now said it**.

You are pretending to maul people, pinkly and fluffily, like the proverbial dead sheep, but in reality everyone is being butted by One Ram!

 

[OneSheep]

You: I agree with Pope Francis, He always waits for us, understands us, and forgives us.

Me: That will come over fine as long as your pieces concretise what they are about at any point.

You; Yes, perhaps it should accompany all my posts, like the avatar. I’ve never done those, but it’s a good idea.

Hi Vic,

I am hearing your requests to be less vague, more concrete, more “boundaries”, I really am. I still do not understand the specifics of your request, and I am very sorry about that. I am trying! Let’s elaborate on your questions and my answers in order to get both of our points across, okay? And please, could we stay on topic rather than criticize my “mauling”? No mauling is intended.

Here is my request:
Please find one single statement I have made that seems vague to you and ask a specific question about the statement’s application, boundaries, dynamics, etc.

Of course, you don’t have to do this, but it would be very helpful to me. Your criticism, which I would gladly make constructive, continues to baffle me.

Concerning tone, are you hearing my sincere desire to comply? I want to hear patience and compassion in yours, but it is getting more difficult to do so.

God Bless your day, Vic. May He bless your family and all the people you love and cherish. May He make your yoke easy and burden light.

 

[OneSheep]

God unconditionally loves, the the individual free will of angels and humans determines the eternal state of each soul. And we read that when Jesus asked his Father to forgive, is was not a grant but a request. Do to the conditional nature of forgiveness, we will not be properly disposed to receive absolution if we will not forgive (in the human sense not the divine) offenses against us, as shown by Mark 11:25:
“And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”

Good Morning, Vico

The other image of God I am talking about elaborates on forgiveness. Yes, God loves unconditionally, and forgiveness itself is an act of love. Therefore, forgiveness is also unconditional, as was demonstrated from the cross.

As far as Mark 11:25 goes, what I explained in post 121 (what the priest told us) still applies, and explains Pope Francis’ absolute statement. To elaborate a little more, Jesus’ contemporaries (and, arguably, all of us) made very personal projections on God. If they felt happy, God was smiling upon them. If they felt guilty, God was not happy with them, did not forgive them. The psychology of the matter is that as long as we are not forgiving others, we are not going to project that God forgives us either. Any thinking that “God forgives me, but not all those people” is superficial. Any thinking that “God forgives me, but I am justified in not forgiving them” is also superficial. The lack of forgiveness will be based on a criteria that will be met by every individual.

Allow me to be even more specific. Let’s say that I have the thought in my mind, “I refuse to forgive greedy people”. Well, have I ever been greedy? Yes, everyone has been greedy at some point in their life, right? So, the measure by which I judge others will be the same measure I will project that God has judged me. I may say superficially “I am forgiven by God because I am not greedy anymore” but deep down my sin is part of my history, so if I refuse to forgive greed I will project that God does the same. Deep down, I cannot realize God’s forgiveness until I forgive the greedy. God’s forgiveness will be “iffy” unless I forgive, which is an insecurity, a fear. God does not want us to live in fear.

If God’s forgiveness is conditional, the condition itself compromises the unlimited mercy and love of God.

Can you think of a circumstance where the same scenario does not apply?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

We have swerved constantly between Jesus forgiving those He was on earth with, God forgiving our sins, minor tiffs, murders and molestations (God forbid), rows starting from other causes, people forgiving each other, people identifying exactly what another has done to them, all mixed up.

In your own passages you haven’t been identifying the who, the what, the where or the when, either as perpetrator, victim, or forgiver of what kind. This is what I mean by concretes, boundaries and dynamics.

(Vico pointed out God can forgive sins and we can forgive offences against us.)

Vico has tried to help a huge amount with the detail. Guanophore has pointed out points relating to both detail and structure. My points have mostly been about structure.

If you detach every single sentence and identify the who, the what, the where or the when, either as perpetrator, victim, or forgiver of what kind, then categorise them and reassemble them in categories in separate chapters, your writings will come over straighforwardly.

Catholics are going through a phase of having to be more alert to whether they are being targetted for moralising or legalism. If others don’t dare admit in our vicinity that they have been hurt, we needn’t assume that generalising will help them enough.

It can take decades of fear and unease before realising exactly what someone did to you.

 

[OneSheep]

We have swerved constantly between Jesus forgiving those He was on earth with, God forgiving our sins, minor tiffs, murders and molestations (God forbid), rows starting from other causes, people forgiving each other, people identifying exactly what another has done to them, all mixed up.

In your own passages you haven’t been identifying the who, the what, the where or the when, either as perpetrator, victim, or forgiver of what kind. This is what I mean by concretes, boundaries and dynamics.

(Vico pointed out God can forgive sins and we can forgive offences against us.)

Vico has tried to help a huge amount with the detail. Guanophore has pointed out points relating to both detail and structure. My points have mostly been about structure.

If you detach every single sentence and identify the who, the what, the where or the when, either as perpetrator, victim, or forgiver of what kind, then categorise them and reassemble them in categories in separate chapters, your writings will come over straighforwardly.

Catholics are going through a phase of having to be more alert to whether they are being targetted for moralising or legalism. If others don’t dare admit in our vicinity that they have been hurt, we needn’t assume that generalising will help them enough.

It can take decades of fear and unease before realising exactly what someone did to you.

Hi Vic,
Thanks for all the suggestions. Since"straightforward" is in the eye of the beholder, I am still going to rely on your specific feedback to make clarifications for you.

So please let me know, okay?

Thanks.

 

[Vico]

Good Morning, Vico

The other image of God I am talking about elaborates on forgiveness. Yes, God loves unconditionally, and forgiveness itself is an act of love. Therefore, forgiveness is also unconditional, as was demonstrated from the cross.

As far as Mark 11:25 goes, what I explained in post 121 (what the priest told us) still applies, and explains Pope Francis’ absolute statement. To elaborate a little more, Jesus’ contemporaries (and, arguably, all of us) made very personal projections on God. If they felt happy, God was smiling upon them. If they felt guilty, God was not happy with them, did not forgive them. The psychology of the matter is that as long as we are not forgiving others, we are not going to project that God forgives us either. Any thinking that “God forgives me, but not all those people” is superficial. Any thinking that “God forgives me, but I am justified in not forgiving them” is also superficial. The lack of forgiveness will be based on a criteria that will be met by every individual.

Allow me to be even more specific. Let’s say that I have the thought in my mind, “I refuse to forgive greedy people”. Well, have I ever been greedy? Yes, everyone has been greedy at some point in their life, right? So, the measure by which I judge others will be the same measure I will project that God has judged me. I may say superficially “I am forgiven by God because I am not greedy anymore” but deep down my sin is part of my history, so if I refuse to forgive greed I will project that God does the same. Deep down, I cannot realize God’s forgiveness until I forgive the greedy. God’s forgiveness will be “iffy” unless I forgive, which is an insecurity, a fear. God does not want us to live in fear.

If God’s forgiveness is conditional, the condition itself compromises the unlimited mercy and love of God.

Can you think of a circumstance where the same scenario does not apply?

Yes, all scenarios show that although God’s love and mercy is unlimited (quantity) our reception of sanctifying grace, when lost, is controlled by our contrition, confession and satisfaction for sin. God stands at the door knocking but we must open the door.

We have the dogma of faith from Trent which declare that remission of sin is conditional.

Canon 4. If anyone denies that for the full and perfect remission of sins three acts are required on the part of the penitent, constituting as it were the matter of the sacrament of penance, namely, contrition, confession and satisfaction, which are called the three parts of penance;[75] or says that there are only two parts of penance, namely, the terrors of a smitten conscience convinced of sin and the faith received from the Gospel or from absolution, by which one believes that his sins are forgiven him through Christ, let him be anathema.

 

[guanophore]

The other image of God I am talking about elaborates on forgiveness. Yes, God loves unconditionally, and forgiveness itself is an act of love. Therefore, forgiveness is also unconditional, as was demonstrated from the cross.

There cannot be free will without conditions. God has set up conditions under which we can access His mercy and grace. We can choose not to follow them. Otherwise, we would just be puppets.

As far as Mark 11:25 goes, what I explained in post 121 (what the priest told us) still applies, and explains Pope Francis’ absolute statement. To elaborate a little more, Jesus’ contemporaries (and, arguably, all of us) made very personal projections on God. If they felt happy, God was smiling upon them. If they felt guilty, God was not happy with them, did not forgive them. The psychology of the matter is that as long as we are not forgiving others, we are not going to project that God forgives us either.

I do agree with you that human beings project upon each other, and upon God. But classifying everything as a human projection results in there not being an independent person who is God. It means that, in all cases where Scripture expresses displeasure, disatisfaction, anger, wrath, etc, it is all just a human projection. This method sets aside a great deal of Scripture as errant and uninspired. It means we cannot trust that any of the content of the New Testament that in any way suggests there are conditions is inspired and inerrant.

All of Scripture must then be re-interpreted in the light of this new theology of God.

 So, the measure by which I judge others will be the same measure I will project that God has judged me.

It seems that God has been removed from the equation here. It is not really God who judges humankind, but humankind that judges itself. If humans think that they are judged, it is merely a human projection.

if I refuse to forgive greed I will project that God does the same. Deep down, I cannot realize God’s forgiveness until I forgive the greedy. God’s forgiveness will be “iffy” unless I forgive, which is an insecurity, a fear. God does not want us to live in fear.

Certainly it is possible for humans to project our unresolved psychological stuff on to God. These kinds of projections will keep us from “realizing” a great many things about the Kingdom.

Scripture does not say that God’s forgiveness is “iffy” if we don’t forgive. Scriptures says we will not be forgiven. Indeed it should provoke insecurity and fear, especially for one who desires to live eternally with God. There are things that can endanger our walk with God, and this is one of them. No, God does not want us to live in fear, but fear is an important clue that something needs attention.

If God’s forgiveness is conditional, the condition itself compromises the unlimited mercy and love of God.

On the contrary, the conditions are the evidence of HIs unlimited mercy and love. In His love he has created us with free will, and allows us to exercise it to the point where we can reject Him.

Can you think of a circumstance where the same scenario does not apply?

Humanism is an approach where the human is at the center. Reality is described, experienced, and explained always through what human beings experience. If forgiveness is not acutally objective (outside of ourselves) then the perspective is completely grounded and centered only on the human person.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, all scenarios show that although God’s love and mercy is unlimited (quantity) our reception of sanctifying grace, when lost, is controlled by our contrition, confession and satisfaction for sin. God stands at the door knocking but we must open the door.

We have the dogma of faith from Trent which declare that remission of sin is conditional.

Canon 4. If anyone denies that for the full and perfect remission of sins three acts are required on the part of the penitent, constituting as it were the matter of the sacrament of penance, namely, contrition, confession and satisfaction, which are called the three parts of penance;[75] or says that there are only two parts of penance, namely, the terrors of a smitten conscience convinced of sin and the faith received from the Gospel or from absolution, by which one believes that his sins are forgiven him through Christ, let him be anathema.

Thank you Vico, this is a very relevant passage. I fear, though, that if Scripture is just considered a human psychological projecton when it refers to the wrath of God, then nothing from official Church teaching will be of much value either.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, all scenarios show that although God’s love and mercy is unlimited (quantity) our reception of sanctifying grace, when lost, is controlled by our contrition, confession and satisfaction for sin. God stands at the door knocking but we must open the door.

We have the dogma of faith from Trent which declare that remission of sin is conditional.

Canon 4. If anyone denies that for the full and perfect remission of sins three acts are required on the part of the penitent, constituting as it were the matter of the sacrament of penance, namely, contrition, confession and satisfaction, which are called the three parts of penance;[75] or says that there are only two parts of penance, namely, the terrors of a smitten conscience convinced of sin and the faith received from the Gospel or from absolution, by which one believes that his sins are forgiven him through Christ, let him be anathema.

Good Morning,

We have two general “themes” when it comes to the image of God, and people have bounced these back and forth over the years, sometimes one, sometimes the other emphasized.

Theme 1: God is Love, God is merciful.

Theme 2: God is Justice

A God who is depicted in any way as “unjust” is against the theme of Justice. However, if the follower of Christ is empowered to forgive unconditionally, doctrine such as Canon 4 may present a God who is less forgiving than His created beings, which is problematic. While it is important to proclaim that God is just, an assertion of God’s justice may never be used to diminish or compromise the theme that God is Love, and has unlimited mercy. Such would be “against the theme” that God is Love.

As I mentioned before, if God forgives conditionally, then conditional love is perfection, and we are to forgive in the same manner. Now, to be frank, there is support for both conditional and unconditional forgiveness in the Gospel. One way of resolving the seeming contradictions is for everyone to admit that we are addressing a mystery. Another way is to simply respect both approaches as valid, as there are different images of God (in terms of detail), all to be guided by our Holy Church.

How do you resolve this one Vico?

Like I said, I agree with the Holy Father’s words in my signature. “Always” means always. However, Canon 4’s words do not necessarily conflict. Let’s look at those three conditions: contrition, confession,and satisfaction. If those conditions do not occur, forgiveness of God, though constant, is not realized, the individual remains in an insecure relationship, which surely is not “full and perfect” as expressed by Canon 4.

 

[guanophore]

Good Morning,

We have two general “themes” when it comes to the image of God, and people have bounced these back and forth over the years, sometimes one, sometimes the other emphasized.

Theme 1: God is Love, God is merciful.

Theme 2: God is Justice

I think a problem arises when these two are set against one another as “opposites”. In fact, God is both of these at the same time.

A God who is depicted in any way as “unjust” is against the theme of Justice.

This becomes especially problematic when the standard for justice is human perception. If one perceives the “unjust” acts of God in Scripture as a psychological projection of the human authors, then the Scriptures do not really “depict” God as He really is, but God as He is perceived through the flawed human psyche.

 However, if the follower of Christ is empowered to forgive unconditionally, doctrine such as Canon 4 may present a God who is less forgiving than His created beings, which is problematic.

I agree that this is problematic. It is so because it uses a human standard to measure the Creator, and find Him wanting.

 While it is important to proclaim that God is just, an assertion of God's justice may never be used to diminish or compromise the theme that God is Love, and has unlimited mercy.  Such would be "against the theme" that God is Love.

This framework creates and promotes a false dichotomy - that God’s love can be separated from His justice. These are not “against” each other, but one and the same.

 As I mentioned before, if God forgives conditionally, then conditional love is perfection, and we are to forgive in the same manner.

No, this conclusion does not follow. God is our Creator,and has perogatives that His creatures do not. He can (and does) create parameters for humankind, and conditions. Humanism places the human person on the same plane with the divine, allocating the same perogatives.

Now, to be frank, there is support for both conditional and unconditional forgiveness in the Gospel.  One way of resolving the seeming contradictions is for everyone to admit that we are addressing a mystery.

Yes. I find this useful in many cases where my rational mind cannot grasp concepts, the Trinity for instance.

Another way to resolve the “seeming contradictions” might be a Catholic approach, which affirms that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God (as opposed to being infused with flawed human psychological projections). In this case, the reader would humbly accept that any “seeming contradictions” exist because the reader has been unable to yet grasp the fullness of Truth. This would also have the benefit of 1) being within Catholic faith and 2) not require that the Bible be re-written to accommodate the theory.

 Like I said, I agree with the Holy Father's words in my signature. "Always" means always.  However, Canon 4's words do not necessarily conflict.  Let's look at those three conditions: contrition, confession,and satisfaction.  If those conditions do not occur, forgiveness of God, though constant, is not *realized*, the individual remains in an insecure relationship, which surely is not "full and perfect" as expressed by Canon 4.

Your interpretation seems to imply that the state of the soul that has not met the conditions is all in the mind of the individual. There is not an actual objective state of separation, but only in how one “perceives” one’s relationship with God.

Since God always forgives, the person has already been forgiven before they go to confession, so not realizing that forgiveness does not objectively interfere with the state of their soul before God.

And because God is always loving and merciful, and there are no conditions on His forgiveness, God will not “punish” a person for their sins.

 

[Vico]

Good Morning,

We have two general “themes” when it comes to the image of God, and people have bounced these back and forth over the years, sometimes one, sometimes the other emphasized.

Theme 1: God is Love, God is merciful.

Theme 2: God is Justice

A God who is depicted in any way as “unjust” is against the theme of Justice. However, if the follower of Christ is empowered to forgive unconditionally, doctrine such as Canon 4 may present a God who is less forgiving than His created beings, which is problematic. While it is important to proclaim that God is just, an assertion of God’s justice may never be used to diminish or compromise the theme that God is Love, and has unlimited mercy. Such would be “against the theme” that God is Love.

As I mentioned before, if God forgives conditionally, then conditional love is perfection, and we are to forgive in the same manner. Now, to be frank, there is support for both conditional and unconditional forgiveness in the Gospel. One way of resolving the seeming contradictions is for everyone to admit that we are addressing a mystery. Another way is to simply respect both approaches as valid, as there are different images of God (in terms of detail), all to be guided by our Holy Church.

How do you resolve this one Vico?

Like I said, I agree with the Holy Father’s words in my signature. “Always” means always. However, Canon 4’s words do not necessarily conflict. Let’s look at those three conditions: contrition, confession,and satisfaction. If those conditions do not occur, forgiveness of God, though constant, is not realized, the individual remains in an insecure relationship, which surely is not “full and perfect” as expressed by Canon 4.

Only God can forgive sins, since he alone can restore sanctifying grace to the truly repentant either through an act of perfect contrition or (mediately) through a sacrament. Humans can forgive those that offend them, which is not like a restoration of sanctifying grace. God can effect our healing through sanctifying grace which we receive only through our prior consent, which is a condition. Absolution remits the guilt and penalty due to sin.

There are a few pertinent dogmas of faith:

• God is infinitely just.
• God is infinitely merciful.
• God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom.
• Baptism confers the grace of justification.
• Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both the eternal and the temporal.
• The Sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation to those who, after Baptism, fall into grievous sin.
• The forgiveness of sins which takes place in the Tribunal of Penance is a true and proper Sacrament, which is distinct from the Sacrament of Baptism
• Extra-sacramental justification is effected by perfect sorrow only when it is associated with the desire for the Sacrament (votum sacramenti).
• The Sacramental confession of sins is ordained by God and is necessary for salvation.
• Absolution, in association with the acts of the penitent, effects the forgiveness of sins.
• The principal effect of the Sacrament of Penance is the reconciliation of the sinner with God.

 

[OneSheep]

Only God can forgive sins, since he alone can restore sanctifying grace to the truly repentant either through an act of perfect contrition or (mediately) through a sacrament. Humans can forgive those that offend them, which is not like a restoration of sanctifying grace. God can effect our healing through sanctifying grace which we receive only through our prior consent, which is a condition. Absolution remits the guilt and penalty due to sin.

There are a few pertinent dogmas of faith:

• God is infinitely just.
• God is infinitely merciful.
• God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom.
• Baptism confers the grace of justification.
• Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both the eternal and the temporal.
• The Sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation to those who, after Baptism, fall into grievous sin.
• The forgiveness of sins which takes place in the Tribunal of Penance is a true and proper Sacrament, which is distinct from the Sacrament of Baptism
• Extra-sacramental justification is effected by perfect sorrow only when it is associated with the desire for the Sacrament (votum sacramenti).
• The Sacramental confession of sins is ordained by God and is necessary for salvation.
• Absolution, in association with the acts of the penitent, effects the forgiveness of sins.
• The principal effect of the Sacrament of Penance is the reconciliation of the sinner with God.

Thanks, Vico.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks, Vico.

Vico’s post describes a Catholic approach to this issue.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

People who are still in turmoil, probably forgave long ago.

Anger at the confusion does not equate to unforgiveness.

Even people who say, “I shall never forgive”, probably forgave long ago.

 

[kdbueno]

Inadvertence causes always innocence.