My priest and confession

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I'm new to Catholicism (and I LOVE being a Catholic!), and when I joyfully told an acquaintance of my conversion, instead of being happy for me, she was filled with derision. One statement she made was particularly bothersome for me, in that I was poorly equipped to "make my case". She stated that she couldn't understand why I HAD to confess to a priest, when she needed only to communicate her confession directly to her God (suggesting that I had a different God?..!) Anyway, I know this issue will probably raise its ugly head in the future, and I'm looking for a SHORT rejoinder that will state my case effectively. Incidentally, I fumbled around for an answer, and weakly said that I wasn't confessing TO my priest, only THROUGH him, but it fell on deaf ears. Upon reflection, there is probably no effective response, if the listener refuses to keep an open mind. Ah well.........

-- Dee (none@sorry.com), May 15, 2003

Answers

Dee,

We just saw a great tape on the Sacrament of Reconciliation in RCIA class this week (we're in mystagogia now). In New Testament times, you could have all your sins, no matter how bad, forgiven through baptism. After that, though, you were expected not to sin anymore. Anyone who committed a big public sin that affected the Church community (apostasy, murder, and adultary were the big three) was excommunicated. After that, there was a period of several hundred years where such a sinner could be forgiven after going through the Order of Penitents, which involved several years of publicly weeping and asking forgiveness. This could only be done once, so it was generally put off until you were getting along in years. Then, the practice of confession started in Ireland, and continued for five hundred despite being denounced by the church leaders. It was finally given official Church approval in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).

The idea that you could just have your (post-baptismal) sins forgiven by communicating directly with God is a Protestant innovation that has no historical antecedent in the earlier history of the Church.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 15, 2003.


The videotape was: "Sacrament of Reconciliation: Past and Present" (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications,1991). Dr. Kathleen Chesto covers the history, ritual and theology of the sacrament of reconciliation. Length: 39 minutes.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 15, 2003.

Hi, Dee,
There are short answers to remarks of the sort: ''she couldn't understand why I HAD to confess to a priest, when she needed only to communicate her confession directly to her God.''

You might say quietly, ''Yes; I once did that myself. Before I was converted to the Church Jesus Christ personally founded. Now I know truly that I am forgiven for my sins; back then I trusted only in myself.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 15, 2003.


Dear Dee,

The short rejoinder is "because that's how Jesus set it up"! Tell her to look in her Bible and read about Jesus giving the leaders of His Church the power to forgive men's sins. She'll find it in John 20:22- 23. Tell her that Jesus would not have given this power to His priests unless He intended them to use it. Since He did not give them the power to read men's minds, the only way they could use this special power is by men confessing their sins. Point out to her that all Christians confessed their sins this way until a few hundred years ago. Ask her by what authority her church STOPPED doing what Jesus said to do, what the Apostles did, and what the original Christian Church has always done. Finally, ask her to direct you to a scripture passage that says we should confess our sins directly to God. When she can't produce such a passage, ask her why she participates in a tradition that is not biblical, and is not a historical practice of Christianity.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 15, 2003.


Dee, Here is a nice table by Fr. Tom Richstatter, O.F.M., that shows how the Church has forgiven (or not) post-baptismal sins thoughout the ages. It talks about the following periods: Jesus and Sub-apostolic Church, 30-300 A.D.
Canonical Penance (Order of Penitents), 300-600 A.D.
Celtic Penance (Tariff Penance), 600-900 A.D.
Confession, 900-1974 A.D.
Reconciliation, 1974 A.D.-present

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 15, 2003.


Mark,

When you said, The idea that you could just have your (post- baptismal) sins forgiven by communicating directly with God is a Protestant innovation that has no historical antecedent in the earlier history of the Church That's not true. The sacrament of confession was a subject of debate in the early church, but was not necessarily universally practiced. Here's a quote from one of the doctors of the Church, St Chrysostom, who wrote in the 4th century the following in various excerpts:

"We do not request you to go to confess your sins to any of your fellow-men, but only to God!" (Crhysostom, Homily on 50th Psalm)

"We do not ask you to go and confess your iniquities to a sinful man for pardon - but only to God." (Ibid.)

"You need no witness of your confession. Secretly acknowledge your sins and let God alone hear you." (Chrysostom, De Paenitentia, Volume IV, Col. 901)

"Therefore, I beseech you, always confess your sins to God! I, in no way, ask you to confess them to me. To God alone should you expose the wounds of your soul, and from him alone expect the cure. Go to Him, then, and you shall not be cast off, but healed. For, before you utter a single word, God knows your prayer." (Chrysostom, De Incomprehensibili, Volume I, Homily V)

While this is not saying that many early church fathers didn't practice confession, it is stating that it was a subject of debate and not a Protestant thing as you asserted.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), May 16, 2003.


Dee,

Though I am no longer a practicing member of the Catholic Church as I was for the first 21 years of my life, I often find myself defending its practices to Protestants. My father was raised fudamentalist and was told many lies growing up about the Church, so I have heard many of the protestations against her. The answer that my mother taught me to the Protestant question of confession is somewhat different from the responses posted here, and I am not sure if it concurs with official dogma: Modern Reconciliation is more than just confessing your sins, but it is admitting to another person that you did wrong and seeking their councel on how to rectify it not only with the person(s) that was wronged, but also with God. It is my understanding that the Priest also assures you of God's love and forgiveness through Christ. You are not, as some Protestants believe, asking the Priest for forgiveness.

-- J Biscuits (clavooxadado@aol.com), May 16, 2003.


I think we are talking apples and oranges here. The Protestant innovation is that absolution of post-baptismal sin can be obtained by just communicating directly with God, without anything else.

The debate that you refer to in the St. Chrysostom quotes was to whether or not confession should or needed to be a part of the overall process of reconciliation (or initial baptism, for that matter). If you'll take a look at the "Process (Stages)" row of the chart I referenced, it may be clearer. The step of "telling" your sins to a "holy person" enters into the sacrament at the time of Celtic Penance 600-900. This was required because the penance assigned depended on what sins you had committed. In the earlier era of Canonical Penance 300-600, the penance required took your full-time effort for several years no matter what the sin.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 16, 2003.


Mark,

"The penance required took your full-time effort for several years no matter what the sin" . . . I don't think so. For sins such as murder, adultery, etc - perhaps, since the sin was so public to the church and community.

Re-read Chryostom's words. We're talking about normal/everyday sins - vanity, coveting, impure thoughts, etc. There wasn't any public penance needed for such things. And Chrysostom was arguing that there was no need to confess them to anyone - in fact, keep them secret he says. Only God should know and as he states, God will forgive and heal in that private confession between the believer and God. That's the Protestant innovation you are referring to. Chrysostom never would have referred to doing this in secret and promising God's healing if there were a public period of penance that lasted for years also required.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), May 16, 2003.


So, David:
Protestants stand with Chrysostom; ''Only God should know and as he states, God will forgive and heal in that private confession between the believer and God.''

If so, you can presume to have corrected the Catholic Church.

But authority in all matters of faith & morals is strictly in the Church of the apostles. Forget the trees, look at the forest, David.

Even if you can reconcile your own conscience for purposes of confession; you dispute with Saint Peter. Saint John Chrysostom would have it differently, if you could speak with him today.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 16, 2003.



Dave,

I can't tell from your quoted material alone what kind of sins St. Chrysostom is talking about. But I had assumed that in this thread we were talking about the "big" sins, thus my comment about Protestant innovation was related to those types of sins.

The notion that you can be forgiven for venial sins by communicating directly with God is thoroughly Catholic; it's called an Act of Contrition. I had understood Dee's question to relate to those sins for which the Catholic Church required confession to a priest.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 16, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, Mark.

I took a look at that table you linked (the one by Franciscan Father Thomas). Although it may have some validity in the area of the early eras of forgiveness of post-baptismal sins, it has MAJOR errors in making an attempt to contrast the final two periods. In fact, there ought not to be two periods in the 900 A.D. to 2003 range. There is only one period -- at least 900 [if not much earlier] to the present.

I know what I am talking about, since I first celebrated this sacrament in 1959. Fr. Thomas, who must have been ill-educated in seminary (or must have read some heterodox theology books on his own), refers to "Confession" as distinguished from "Reconciliation." This is a false dichotomy. Catholics of my age group (and anyone else who takes a look at the Catechism) know that this sacrament has many names that are used interchangeably -- the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation, the Sacrament of Penance, the Sacrament of Confession, the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the Sacrament of Peace. These are ways of referring to some of the multiple elements of the sacrament (e.g., "confession" of sins, "penance" accomplished, "reconciliation" with God and the Church, "peace" in the soul).

The only significant thing that happened in 1974 was the addition of a second rite of the sacrament -- used occasionally in some parishes -- wherein the gathered assembly publicly participates together in some preliminary elements, though each person still privately confesses sins, absolution, and penance.

The other big way in which Fr. Thomas's table is wrong is in trying to paint the "900-1974" period as negative, oppressive, defective, or incomplete -- while painting the "1974-present" period as idealistically marvelous. He even mentions some things in the rightmost column (top to bottom) that are not valid aspects of the sacrament, while intentionally omitting other things that ARE valid aspects. [Examples: "Story telling"? NO. "The Commmunity" as ministers? NO. No longer any need for "conscience, confession, absolution, penance"? WRONG. "Public" celebration? RARELY (AND THEN ONLY PARTIALLY). "Public" sin? NO WAY!]

As I said, there is only one period since 900 (or earlier), so the few good and truthful things from that rightmost column need to be merged with the truthful information in the previous column. That will give you a realistic picture of the sacrament celebrated since the first millennium.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 16, 2003.


Mark,

You said, "But I had assumed that in this thread we were talking about the "big" sins, thus my comment about Protestant innovation was related to those types of sins".

Ahhh, and thus we have the source of our apple/orange discrepancy. To me, Dee appeared to have been discussing the ordinary/everyday sins and why one goes to confession to have them forgiven versus going to God directly. The context of her post mentions nothing extraordinary to indicate it's addressing murder, adultery, heresy, etc. Anyway, you were addressing one sort of sin (apple) and I was addressing a different sort (orange).

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), May 16, 2003.


>> Fr. Thomas, who must have been ill-educated in seminary ...

If what you say is true, I'm afraid it's worse than that. If you check his homepage, you'll find that Fr. Thomas is a Professor of Liturgy and Sacramental Theology in Saint Meinrad Archabbey's School of Theology.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 16, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, David B.
Concerning those possible quotations from St. John Chrysostom ...
I would like to examine them within context, so that I can find out just what the saint meant. Can you help me to find the full texts of the "Homily on 50th Psalm," the "De Paenitentia, Volume IV, Col. 901," and the "De Incomprehensibili, Volume I, Homily V."
Maybe you can find these three works among the hundreds of homilies by the saint at the following two "Church Fathers" sites. (I couldn't find them.) ...
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/
I'm not saying that the works don't exist, but only that they seem not to be on the Internet.

I was able to find your (possible) quotations on the Internet, but only at anti-Catholic sites. I'm puzzled as to how the full English texts of the works cited were available to those anti-Catholics, but I can't find them on the Internet. This leaves me unsure if the quotations were (1) invented, (2) poorly translated, or (3) misunderstandable when out of context. [Hmmm. Deja vu. It seems as though we went through this kind of thing twice before with some anti-Marian quotations.]

Let's take a look, for a change, at a genuine, verifiable quotation from St. John Chrysostom on priests forgiving sin:

"Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven" (Treatise on the Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387])."
[We can verify this quotation at the www.ccel.org site I mentioned earlier. An older translation of the original Greek is here.]

The newer translation that I copied above came from this page, where various other early Catholic Fathers are quoted, proving that the Protestant position is wrong. The same apologetics site has an essay on the forgiveness of sins, according to standard Christian theology.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 16, 2003.



Fr. Thomas is a Professor of Liturgy and Sacramental Theology in Saint Meinrad Archabbey's School of Theology.

Very unfortunate, that fact, I'd say, Mark. I've known that St. Meinrad is not on the short list of 100% reliable seminaries in America. Nor is Fr. Thomas's "Order of Friars Minor" [O.F.M.] free of the taint of dissent. Very sad.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 16, 2003.


Mark,

Don’t let titles fool you. I had a university professor in Theology (an acknowledged “expert” who was an ordained priest in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church) tell me that Hell does not exist.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 19, 2003.


Wow! I had no idea I would be opening such a can of worms....! Thank you, ALL, for your input, ideas, advice, and suggestions. I have gained much knowledge from your exchanges (heated or otherwise...!)

Thanks

-- Dee (none@sorry.com), May 19, 2003.


Mark,

Someone should advise the publisher, Fr. Tom Richstatter, O.F.M., who is spreading this "internal forum solution" propoganda, that he will not be able to get permission to publish this stuff from the supposed author, Bishop Bernard J. Ganter, as he died in 1993...

I would suggest that Fr. Tom Richstatter's views are not highly regarded in Rome...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 20, 2003.


Daniel,

That is an excellent writeup on the internal forum. I don't see any reason why it would not be highly regarded in Rome.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 21, 2003.


M Are you serious?

The 'write up' you exhalt is in the same genre as President Clinton's "it depends what the definition of is is" statement...

It is ludicrous...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 21, 2003.


Daniel,

I've already posted in the other thread, on internal forum, so that is probably the best place to discuss this, but do you have any specific complaints, other than the fact that the writeup acknowledges that the internal forum solution does in fact exist?

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 21, 2003.


Mark,

murder exists -as does abortion... of what relevance is something man does in and of itself unless compared with ultimate truth, God & Church. Your internal forum 'solution' misses the mark by much...

There is no debate -you are completely wrong -no ifs ands or buts - there is no gray area...

You have seen all the specifics already -you know the truth yet continue to espouse the lies... If other liars agree with each other -so what?

The complaints are yours -I simply OBEY God and Church and would suggest you do the same... -- sin is sin... even if hidden, even if secret, even if not made into public scandal... the answer is not to 'secretly' lead others into accepting sin so that there is no scandal and a secret consensus in sin (conspiracy)... Sin can not be OK'ed

-try this exercise in a moment when you are free from the pastoral yoke that seems to limit blood flow to the brain... -- Simply swap the word abortion or murder with adultery or invalid marriage and reread your pastoral prescription -is it a prescription that leads to eternal life?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 21, 2003.


Daniel,

>> Sin can not be OK'ed

No, but sin can be forgiven, if the sinner confesses and repents. (Even the sins of abortion or murder.) That's what the Sacrament of Reconciliation is all about. If you are unable to forgive those who have sinned against you, and are upset at the Church for not acting as your instrument of vengeance, then you may be happier in another religion that cuts of the hands of theives and stones adulterers and adulteresses. But if you choose to stay in the Catholic faith, you need to follow all her teachings, even the ones that prescribe more mercy than you are currently capable of showing.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 21, 2003.


Sin can be forgiven -- but only if there is genuine contrition and a firm purpose of amendment.

Within the phony "internal forum solution," proposed in the linked article and rejected by the pope, there can be no forgiveness, because there is no contrition for the ongoing acts of adultery ... and because there is no purpose of amendment at all. The intention is to continue to commit mortal sins. Confession and absolution are only for past sins, not those of the future.

(We should stick to the other thread. No use duplicating effort here.)
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 21, 2003.


Dear Mark,

It is clear that you favor mercy, really false charity, at the expense of justice. While you and others tend to berate some of us for constantly calling for justice, implying that it is wrong to repeatedly point out inequities, particularly in the tribunal system.

Real charity never occurs at the expense of justice. Just as justice cannot ever ignore charity. The problems I point out are, in my opinion, an expression of false charity which leads always to injustice.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 21, 2003.


Mark,

I will break it down so that you may digest much needed knowledge and guidance in easily consumable chunks -chew slowly, swallow before taking the next bite...

1. "No, but sin can be forgiven, if the sinner confesses and repents. (Even the sins of abortion or murder.) That's what the Sacrament of Reconciliation is all about."

Thank you for pointing this out -interesting information; I can think of no Catholic that would disagree with this innocuous statement... It is irrelevant information to the topic dujour - however, to the easily decieved reader it could erroneously lend credibility to the garbage you repeatedly interlace with such truthful jewels as this...

2. "If you are unable to forgive those who have sinned against you, and are upset at the Church for not acting as your instrument of vengeance..."

hmmm... pastoral weedhopper -I think thou hast left footprints in the rice paper... people(us) sin against God ONLY... There is only one 'standard', one truth, one judge etc. etc.

As far as the Church not acting as my instrument of vengeance? What is the opposite of vengeance? Once again, you draw an irrelevant line in the sand -why? Secrecy & hidden 'pastoral' conspiracy is what -the opposite of vengeance? Here we go Mark OH -we call it moral relativism in these here parts, pardner weedhopper... EVEN if I wanted to use the Church as an instrument of my vengeance would that make it okay for you and your pastoral relativists to use it as an instrument of 'free love'?

3. "then you may be happier in another religion that cuts of the hands of theives and stones adulterers and adulteresses."

-well.. let us consider... I was born Catholic, I am Catholic, I have been Catholic for over 40 years... I have never considered leaving the one and only true Church AND 'happiness' here on the blue ball has nothing to do with it -what say you?

What less than genuine religion did you 'convert' from? You may still be converting?

"But if you choose to stay in the Catholic faith, you need to follow all her teachings, even the ones that prescribe more mercy than you are currently capable of showing."

Is it OK if I stay -yet, not accept your delusion as Truth?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 22, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ