DRIVE THRU CONFESSION???

[concretecamper]

In the sacrament of confession the priest absolves sins he does not forgive them. I see that you are a Catholic while I am not but I urge you to ask a priest or bishop if they teach and if the Catholic Church teaches that priests forgive sins as distinct from absolving sins.

Tomayto Tomaaato

 

[bbbbbbb]

Tomayto Tomaaato

Well put.

 

[tz620q]

I don't find the pandemic horrifying...
and I live in Italy.
We should take very good care of ourselves, now especially...
but other than that, the time comes to die and it will come.

I find drive thru confessions rather horrifying because it seems to be a cold
procedure and does not have any of the sacramental qualities to it.

Do you approve of it?

I think you do have a good point. Theologically, confession can and does happen in odd circumstances; but a sacrament is meant to be holy. The normative process should be designed to put the human recipient in a mode outside of his normal life activities. This is not because God cannot work outside the sacramental setting; but because humans need a jolt to pull them out of the flesh of this world and into a spiritual place where they can comprehend the enormous grace that God gives us. If we allow this sacrament to become too worldly, we are losing that and slipping into the cheap contrition that is practiced by most today, where my buddy, Jesus, gives me everything I ask for with no effort on my part to reform or even recognize the seriousness of my sin.

 

[Hamlet7768]

Just a side note.
Actually the very early church DID start out doing confession the way you describe...However, the sins were said out loud and this became a problem.

It would be interesting for you to do a short study on how the confession we have today came about.
Church history is important to know,,,it's a shame more are not interested - especially we Protestants...we don't care at all about church history because we feel it's a "catholic thing".
This is unfortunate.

Generally speaking the modern practice of individual private confession came from the Irish, actually. Not all of the Irish practices made it to the present day—for instance, the Celtic penchant for fines solving everything led to being able to pay people to do penance on your behalf!—but that's where "private" reconciliation, as distinct from the elsewhere-in-medieval-Europe practice of public penances has its roots, as far as I can discern.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I think you do have a good point. Theologically, confession can and does happen in odd circumstances; but a sacrament is meant to be holy. The normative process should be designed to put the human recipient in a mode outside of his normal life activities. This is not because God cannot work outside the sacramental setting; but because humans need a jolt to pull them out of the flesh of this world and into a spiritual place where they can comprehend the enormous grace that God gives us. If we allow this sacrament to become too worldly, we are losing that and slipping into the cheap contrition that is practiced by most today, where my buddy, Jesus, gives me everything I ask for with no effort on my part to reform or even recognize the seriousness of my sin.

Yes, agreed !
First of all, importance should be given to a sacrament and not taken away.

I've come to understand that this is only temporary due to the virus, but I hope the idea doesn't catch on.

Regarding you last thought on Jesus being our buddy...I couldn't agree more. And I also don't care for those who sin thinking beforehand that then they'll be able to confess their sin. I know a priest (he's retired now) that would refuse to absolve persons that he thought (or knew - small town here) were not contrite.

And also, God makes us the offer, we accept it and then we must go on to being a disciple of Christ.

We can fool ourselves,,,but God will not be mocked.
Going to church and confession is not enough....our heart must be changed.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Generally speaking the modern practice of individual private confession came from the Irish, actually. Not all of the Irish practices made it to the present day—for instance, the Celtic penchant for fines solving everything led to being able to pay people to do penance on your behalf!—but that's where "private" reconciliation, as distinct from the elsewhere-in-medieval-Europe practice of public penances has its roots, as far as I can discern.

I don't know the history of indulgences or doing penance on another's behalf. I don't agree with either practice.

I do know some history on confession and I never read anything about it being an Irish practice.

Just quick:
In the early church there was no confession.
They believed that after baptism persons would no longer sin due to the dwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Some waited to be baptized because this forgave all their sins...some even waited to be near death.

But soon enough it was realized that persons would keep on sinning. So they began to have confession when gathering...they were said out loud and then forgiven. You could imagine what this caused in a community.

Private confession came about in the 9th century --- I beleive.

Here's a good link:

Sacrament of Penance - Wikipedia

 

[GodsGrace101]

Generally speaking the modern practice of individual private confession came from the Irish, actually. Not all of the Irish practices made it to the present day—for instance, the Celtic penchant for fines solving everything led to being able to pay people to do penance on your behalf!—but that's where "private" reconciliation, as distinct from the elsewhere-in-medieval-Europe practice of public penances has its roots, as far as I can discern.

See link in my post no. 86....

 

[Hamlet7768]

I don't know the history of indulgences or doing penance on another's behalf. I don't agree with either practice.

I do know some history on confession and I never read anything about it being an Irish practice.

Just quick:
In the early church there was no confession.
They believed that after baptism persons would no longer sin due to the dwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Some waited to be baptized because this forgave all their sins...some even waited to be near death.

But soon enough it was realized that persons would keep on sinning. So they began to have confession when gathering...they were said out loud and then forgiven. You could imagine what this caused in a community.

Private confession came about in the 9th century --- I beleive.

Here's a good link:

Sacrament of Penance - Wikipedia

I wasn't meaning to contradict this. I was supplementing that I believe the practice of private confession, as opposed to public confession, seems to have originated with the Irish.

I agree that doing penance on another's behalf is, at best, specious, though that's distinct from indulgences, indulgences being really outside the scope of this discussion.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I wasn't meaning to contradict this. I was supplementing that I believe the practice of private confession, as opposed to public confession, seems to have originated with the Irish.

I agree that doing penance on another's behalf is, at best, specious, though that's distinct from indulgences, indulgences being really outside the scope of this discussion.

I hope you read the link on the post I had directed you to. It DID mention about celtic confessions, but it was already in the middle ages -- confession was pretty set by this time.

I don't agree with indulgences either. I don't think it's up to man to tell God what to do.

Pope Francis had just declared that sins will be forgiven even without confession (even mortal) if a set procedure is followed. Is this right?

If this can be true for now...then it can be true at any time, even without confession.

I had to leave the Catholic church many years ago. One of the biggest problems I had in studying doctrine to make this big decision, was exactly that of confession. But even when we confess, it's God doing the forgiving, not the priest, of course. The priest confirms and this is very good and helps people in many ways, spiritually, psychologically, emotionally. I would never argue with anyone about confession - it's a personal matter. But I still maintain that if it can be waived...then why would it be necessary at all? It cannot be the Pope to dictate what God has revealed to the church.

 

[Hamlet7768]

I hope you read the link on the post I had directed you to. It DID mention about celtic confessions, but it was already in the middle ages -- confession was pretty set by this time.

I don't agree with indulgences either. I don't think it's up to man to tell God what to do.

Pope Francis had just declared that sins will be forgiven even without confession (even mortal) if a set procedure is followed. Is this right?

If this can be true for now...then it can be true at any time, even without confession.

I had to leave the Catholic church many years ago. One of the biggest problems I had in studying doctrine to make this big decision, was exactly that of confession. But even when we confess, it's God doing the forgiving, not the priest, of course. The priest confirms and this is very good and helps people in many ways, spiritually, psychologically, emotionally. I would never argue with anyone about confession - it's a personal matter. But I still maintain that if it can be waived...then why would it be necessary at all? It cannot be the Pope to dictate what God has revealed to the church.

I understand whence your reasoning comes. This is as good an opportunity as any to explain the nature of the Church's authority, and how it relates to this. The Church has the apostolic authority granted by Christ to bind and loose (Mt 16:18-19 to Peter and 18:18-19 to the Apostles collectively). This is why the Church can absolve sins in the name of Jesus (and this authority was specifically given to the Apostles after the Resurrection in Jn 20:23).

We first see this authority on display in the Council of Jerusalem, chronicled in Acts 15. The Church there made a ruling about the application of specific restrictions in a way as to prevent scandal to its rapidly diversifying membership. The Church doesn't have the power to change Truth—She cannot declare that sin no longer displeases God, for example. However, She does have power to bind and loose the disciplines of the sacraments. In this case, Pope Francis is granting a dispensation from the sacrament for those who are restricted by COVID-19 quarantines/

This is, in fact, common—those who are homebound and lacking transportation are not required to attend Mass, for example, though they should still do what they can to make the Lord's Day a holy day, whether that is viewing a Mass, praying the Rosary, or prayerfully reading Scripture. Similarly, there are protocols for a service of "general absolution" when personal confessions cannot be heard—an archetypal example is a sinking ship. These do not mean that the Church does not still require these things of those who are able—rather, it is acknowledging that they cannot make it, and reassuring them that their desire can merit them the graces. God is not a God of the gotcha—if He sees someone who earnestly desires to receive His Graces but cannot receive the Sacraments, will He not pour out Grace upon Grace for that poor soul?

 

[GingerBeer]

First, of course, is that I did not reference any biblical verse, so one cannot say that I "wrenched" a verse out of context.

You did not use any biblical passages but I did and your reply implied that I wrenched the passage I quoted out of context. I do not see how my posts could be construed as teaching that you quoted the scriptures and wrenched them out of context.

 

[GingerBeer]

A year ago I dare say had anyone proposed the notion of drive-through confession you would have had the same comment. Reality, such as we know it, is getting more imaginative each day.

I am confident that some Catholics have had "drive through" confession for a considerable time, not just a year or two. Much room is made for the disabled and for others who may need such helpful variant on the usual forms.

 

[GingerBeer]

calling for the elders of the church (several men who would come to a person's home) rather than having the sick person go to a church to meet with a clergyman and including confession of sins as part and parcel with the anointing with oil of the sick person

What makes you think that calling the elders means calling all of the elders of a diocese? Why is it not calling the elders of the church (in Antioch, for example) if you call one or two of them best known to you?

And what makes you think that the elders always went to the sick person's home rather than to some place where the sick person was at? Why would it not be possible for the elders in Jerusalem to go to a local Christian meeting place (a church building, or home used for such purposes) to pray for the sick person? It does not follow that every sick and dying person is bed ridden in their own home.

 

[GingerBeer]

Presbyter is translated in English as elder

That claim is simply not true. In some English bibles, notably Protestant bibles, it may be so but it is not so with all bibles in English. Besides, priest in English is rooted in Presbyter, that is indisputable.

It is also true that in some English bibles Heirus (in Greek) is translated priest, and in Greek Heirus is the word for priests who made sacrifices to Yahweh. So English, unfortunately, uses one word to translate more than one Greek word, and in the case of priest the words in Greek have quite distinct meanings which English bibles do not always reflect well. Protestant bibles tend to use "elder" but that was a trend introduced by Protestantism in the sixteenth century. In Latin, the language most common in England's churches before the schism enacted by Henry VIII, advanced by Edward VI, and finalised by Elizabeth I and James I the word for presbyter was in fact presbyter. I am not sure what word or words the early Catholic/English bibles used, Wycliffe's bible (regarded as corrupt by Catholics in his time) would be one place to check what English words he used. The Latin official text however is as indicated - using presbyter for presbyter.

 

[GingerBeer]

Tomayto Tomaaato

Not really, absolution is a spoke assurance of forgiveness. It is spoken by a priest as representative of Christ. Forgiveness is the act of God forgiving sins because of Jesus Christ's mission in this world to redeem God's people from their sins. The distinction is not moot. It is clear and significant.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You did not use any biblical passages but I did and your reply implied that I wrenched the passage I quoted out of context. I do not see how my posts could be construed as teaching that you quoted the scriptures and wrenched them out of context.

You did not take the verse in its context. That is an indisputable fact.

The context is a sick man, not your ordinary Christian. His treatment for his illness is specified as calling for the elders (to his bedside, not some confessional in a church building). The elders are told to anoint him with oil (something that is not done in the Catholic Rite of Reconciliation (aka Confession)) and to pray for him (again, something that you overlooked). He, in turn, confesses his sins to them (not a singular priest) and his sins will be forgiven (with no mention of penance).

Your interpretation fails miserably.

 

[GingerBeer]

You did not take the verse in its context. That is an indisputable fact.

That is not correct.
I did in fact quote sufficient context to see what the verse is about, and James 5 is short enough for anyone following the conversation to read in full without taking much time.

Confession is not about "who" forgives sins. God forgives and that is not disputed by anyone.
Confession is about advice, reassurance, help, and hearing. Hearing the assurance of God's forgiveness.
James 5:14-16 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That is not correct.
I did in fact quote sufficient context to see what the verse is about, and James 5 is short enough for anyone following the conversation to read in full without taking much time.

Nevertheless you chose to take an eisegetic hermeneutic and twisted the verse to conform to the Catholic Rite of Confession when, in fact, James had no such thing in mind when he wrote it.

 

[concretecamper]

Not really.

Yes really. But you seems to have your mind made up.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes really. But you seems to have your mind made up.

He does, indeed, as, I would add, most of us seem to, for better or worse.