<p>Yes, I have heard the “Because a priest forgives, we have assurance that the sins are forgiven argument”, as a Catholic and I don’t totally buy it. Remember that Penance is a sacrament- which means it effects what it symbolizes. And that Penance is a sacrament that is celebrated. </p>
<p>Yes, God forgives sins that are directly confessed to him. And only God knows the true penitence of someone going into the confessional. That doesn’t mean the ritual of penance is meaningless however. </p>
<p>The ritual of confession, contrition, absolution and penance, is a way for us humans to actually feel the forgiveness of God that is always freely offered to the contrite. And yes, it is a “mediated” ritual (ie middle man)- because all communication with God, while we are on earth, is mediated through our senses and relationships with others- direct contact with God will not occur until heaven. </p>
<p>As for the bomber- the priest would hold off on absolution until the performance of the penance, which would likely be- call the cops, stop the bomb, then come back and see me. The priest in this situation, however, still could not reveal this to the cops, even if he didn’t grant absolution. This confession would still be protected by the seal of the confessional.</p>
<p>Lasma and rumandting may feel my friend was wrong when he explained to me about the assurances of being forgiven. I think he was referring to the assurances of a trusted church leader and teacher. One who isn’t Catholic would miss out on the confidence and comfort gained from those assurances. His opinion.
In my own opinion, though, don’t we sometimes ask for a sign as an indication of God’s response? What if we don’t get a sign, or don’t recognize a sign? Does that prove God has disapproved of our request? I’d say no, it only means he chose not to give us a sign. But some, not seeing a sign they requested, might wonder if the message was received. For those people, having a trusted church official assure them that they were heard could be uplifting and comforting.</p>
<p>Yes, younghoss- I think you make a good point about how many Catholics “feel” about the sacrament. I was just pointing out that that feeling isn’t necessarily part of the theology of the sacrament. I think most Catholics feel much better after they make a good confession, because they are owning up and recognizing the forgiveness of God given to them. </p>
<p>But, I would venture to say that many Protestants also feel better after they make their “direct” confession- they too are assured of God’s forgiveness and feel it after they come clean, I would think.</p>
<p>I agree with pipmom. I think younghoss’s friend is reading his views into people of other faiths’ minds without understanding. No, I do not need the assurance of a church leader to ascertain I was heard; I can’t imagine feeling that way. I think that this explanation comes from someone who’s always had that outside assurance, so can’t imagine not needing it.</p>
<p>You can talk directly to God. Don’t need a middle-man. Not sure if confessing to another person in order to be forgiven by the Lord is even Biblical - but it might be. </p>
<p>I always go right to the Bible because the Bible is God’s rules. So many “rules” that we know of are Man’s rules - not God’s. </p>
<p>It is really great to have a personal relationship with God. Amazing, actually. No words to explain…</p>
<p>eddie, Jesus is now our high priest. He performs the functions that once were performed by human priests, including interceding with God on our behalf. There is no biblical support for the notion that a priest must confirm our forgiveness. This is strictly a church tradition.</p>
<p>I am really enjoying these posts - not to prove one way is right or wrong - but that the opinions having given me different insights. I’m never good at expressing my beliefs / feelings. So many of you are very gifted in that way.</p>
<p>It is interesting to note that in the early Christian church, there was no such thing as confession. Rather- people took baptism very very seriously as the only way to be cleansed of sin. As time went on, folks realized that not everyone stopped sinning and there needed to be a way for someone post-baptism to get forgiveness. Now, mind you this was not for “little sins” but for very big, public sins. The church then instituted Penance. This was a very formal process, whereby public sinners made a public confession to the community, were ordered to wear sackcloth and ashes, remain apart for the assembly at Mass and wait until the bishop decide to forgive them. This could take up to several years. These penitents were eventually forgiven and could return to communion. You could only do “Penance” like this once after baptism. </p>
<p>After a while, the Irish monks started coming to Europe and hanging out in monasteries. They started the practice of “spiritual direction”, whereby country folk would go to them, confess their deep dark secrets privately and get advice about what to do to stop sinning. This became a very popular practice, with no official Church sanction. The official Church position on penance was the very strict “Canonical penance” that I describe above. </p>
<p>There is, of course, much more history to this sacrament, but suffice to say that it was not until the Council of Trent- post Reformation, that Penance became an official sacrament done similarly to the way it is today- individual confession to a priest, repeatable as many times as necessary in one’s life.</p>
<p>IRL, the priest would have a brother that is a cop and he would tell him about the bomb threat. A brotherless priest would call his bishop and the bishop would call the authorities.</p>
<p>He cannot do either of those things, even IRL. Excommunication lata sententia would be incurred immediately, and he may incur even more severe penalties (e.g. a lifelong state of penitence, inability to celebrate the Sacraments, etc.).</p>
<p>I’m not sure if anyone here has said that “confessing to another person in order to be forgiven by the Lord” is required. It is odd to argue against it, when it hasn’t been said. It has been said that it is Catholic tradition, it has been said it helps the sinner feel better afterward, but those are different statements than saying it is required. That is a part of the Protestant mis-perception my Catholic friend was trying to educate me about. Some people disagree with what they mistakenly think is a part of Catholicism.
My friend also talked about “the Way”, and denominations(Christian) that each felt their way was the only way- that each felt they had the one, right answer, but I won’t go into that.</p>
<p>Younghoss, it is worth distinguishing between venial and mortal/grave sins – they are different theologically and forgiveness operates “differently” for both.</p>
<p>Baelor- regarding your earlier question- no I don’t have a reference. My statement should have been qualified to indicate that based on my conversations with priests and various theology courses, it is likely that the priest would not offer absolution before asking for such a show of remorse.</p>
<p>YH–I don’t think anyone has said it, either. What I argued against was your friend’s supposition that non-Catholics don’t get assurance of forgiveness, which he supposes makes them uneasy. And I said, and maintain, that I don’t think that’s the norm at all, but would only be guessed at by someone who comes from a tradition where that assurance is deemed necessary for peace of mind (according to your account).</p>
<p>Younghoss, it is worth distinguishing between venial and mortal/grave sins – they are different theologically and forgiveness operates “differently” for both. </p>
<hr>
<p>Is there Biblical evidence that God established “levels of sin?” Is there scripture that says that one sin is more or less acceptable than another in the eyes of God? The story of the Garden of Eden symbolizes the moment that God realized that while created in His image, man is a sinner. God sent His son to live as a man, and Jesus died FOR OUR SINS. The blood of Jesus covers our sins, and we have salvation through this. God knows that we are not perfect, and He does not keep score. There is no point system by which angels are tallying up our sins to find out whether or not we got a low enough score to earn entry into heaven. </p>
<p>While I understand the importance of the sacrament of confession to Catholics, non-Catholics do not necessarily view things the same way. If I confess my sins to God, I know He hears. My assurance that my sins are forgiven comes from the Bible itself.</p>
<p>kelsmom- One could argue that the Scriptural basis for “levels” of sin come from the 10 Commandments. Coveting your neighbor’s goods was, at the time, perceived as lesser than a violation of the commandments above it. </p>
<p>One could also argue that later, Jesus, in summarizing the gospel into the two great commandments (eg:love the Lord your God, and the second, love your neighbor or as yourself- both are equal) does away with the ancient Jewish ranking of sins and violations. </p>
<p>It would seem, however, that Paul certainly perceives some sins as more grievous than others- He ragged on the Galatians and the Corinthians pretty bad about particular sins as being worse than others. </p>
<p>The Catholic Church does not abide sola scriptura, as most Protestant churches do. That is, we see revelation coming through two sources- Scripture and Tradition. Therefore, a lot of what we believe and practice cannot be directly found in Scripture, although the roots are there.</p>
<p>This doesn’t expressly answer the OP’s question, but it is the official explanation of the sacrament of confession (also known as reconciliation). </p>
<p>My understanding is that a priest can withhold absolution until there is satisfaction. (See section 1459.) Thus, in the bomb example, if there were still time to prevent it from exploding, the priest could withhold absolution and require the penitent to do his best to prevent the explosion before he would grant absolution.</p>
<p>My main concern is the idea that absolution may be withheld until the penance is completed. I was not aware of this, so I was wondering if you could point to a particular canon or something. I ask because I was under the impression that only open refusal to complete the penance, i.e. “No, I will NOT turn myself in” can be grounds for withholding absolution (in the context of completion of penance).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kelsmom, I am not trying to attack your beliefs or anything like that, so I apologize if my intent was misunderstood. The OP was asking about Catholic confession in particular, so I was noting something that has particular importance in Catholic theology in terms of the doctrine of sin. I am, of course, well aware of differences in theology between Christian sects. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is true. But in the contrived situation in which he does not, he would not be allowed to contact the authorities to ensure that it had been resolved.</p>
<p>Pipmom, I appreciate your response. Whether or not I agree, I respect others’ beliefs and appreciate the opportunity for greater understanding. There are many beliefs and interpretations among various Christian groups, so it is interesting to know why others believe as they do.</p>