One Catholic’s Honest Criticism about Sacrament of Confession

[fhansen]

There is a case to be made that the sacrament of confession in the Catholic Church contradicts scripture, but it doesn’t look any thing like the criticism that comes from Protestants. An honest criticism of the way the sacrament of confession has been practiced in Catholicism, as well as the churches in schism, since the fourth century should include the following:

1. In the Epistle of James 2:15, it’s clear that early Christians did not just confess their sins to a priest. They confessed their sins to the entire congregation. In the fourth century, the Catholic Church from the practice of public confession, and changed it to private and confidential confession only to a single priest or bishop. The church decided it was not a good idea to have people’s sins exposed to publicly.

2. Then there is the penance by the sinner and the absolution through the priest. Prior to the fourth century, after confessing his sins, a Christian had to do his penance prior to receiving absolution. For serious/mortal sins, a Christian’s acts of penance could take weeks, months, or even years before he could receive absolution and be permitted to attend the divine liturgy. Since the fourth century, the clergy have been giving absolution prior to the Christian performing his acts of penance, and the acts of penance became relegated to the simple recitation of prayers like ten Our Fathers and ten Hail Marys. While I do understand the decision for letting Christians make private and confidential confessions, the concept of giving absolution prior to penance seems a little absurd to me.

Instead of Protestants confessing their sins to the entire congregation as described in James 2:15, they simply do away with the practice. For a group of people who claim to be more faithful to scripture than Catholics, this makes no sense.

1 John 1 also tells us that, if we confess our sins then Jesus will purify us from all unrighteousness. This also implies what the church actually teaches, that forgiveness is always related to our sincerity, to our sorrow over sin, and our faith in believing that God forgives and heals. The sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation acknowledges the fact that,
1) we can compromise our state of justice before God by living unjustly, i.e. persistently sinning in grave, serious ways,
2) God forgives and graces those who have a true change of heart and turn back to Him.

The sacrament sets those theological truths in stone, and provides a practical means for us to live them out. As always, people can still practice the faith mechanically, legalistically, but that in no ways alters the truths behind the belief and practice.

 

[Clare73]

General confession during a church service is openly admitting
we each are sinful 'one to another' and collectively,

All sin is against God, for it is his law we are breaking, not our law.

 

[Clare73]

If the entire early Christian church practiced confession in that manner then of course it was biblical.

When did the entire church do anything?

I don’t mean to insult you, but my guess is that you have no more than a college degree at most. You are clearly unfamiliar with the principles of advanced reading skills used by people like historians, theologians, textual critics, and lawyers.

God love you. . .but the methodology of historians, theologians, etc. are not about reading skills.

The things I am telling you are part of advanced textual interpretation used by all of these fields. I knew a lawyer who used to collect dictionaries from every year so when he was reading a document he would know how a particular word was being used at the time the document was written, and not simply rely on grammar.
As for Jesus’ teaching about homosexual acts, I don’t know what you mean. Are you suggesting Jesus did not prohibit homosexual acts?

I am saying he didn't mention the subject, as he didn't mention many subjects of the Levitical law.

As for historical examples, I will have to open a certain book as I can’t remember the exact historical evidence off the top of my head, but I will get it for you as soon as possible, even though you have made it clear it still wouldn’t change your mind because of your dogmatic grammar beliefs.

 

[bling]

That's not the way I read the Gospels. Jesus was very clear that God would not forgive the Pharisees because of this very issue, they refused to repent and believed they were without sin. Jesus made it clear he was there for the sick and the sinners. In other words, if you don't acknowledge you are a sinner and repent, God will not forgive your sins. That's why he would not forgive the unrepentant Pharisees.

I believe that's exactly what Jesus meant when he told the Pharisees in John 9:41, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." If the Pharisees were blind, they would be unknowing and unrepentant of sin, but God would still forgive them. But they claimed they were wise and had no sin, and so as Jesus said, their "Guilt remains."

Their guilt remains, because they are not humbly accepting God’s forgiveness as pure undeserved charity.

True unconditional unselfish sacrificial forgiving is an act of Love and God is Love so God forgives not because of what the person being forgiven did, but because of who God is.

People have a really hard time humbling themselves to the point of accepting pure charity as charity and will say, do and believe almost anything to avoid having to humble themselves.

The Pharisees did not want nor would they allow themselves to believe they were sinners, but that is not God’s fault of not forgiving them.

This is really explained in Matt 18, but it takes lots of thinking to understand:

God’s Definition of Forgiveness

When sincere Christians differ, it mostly has to do with differences in their assumptions including differences in the definitions of the same words their using.

“Forgiveness” is one of those words we have different definitions for that causes “doctrinal” differences between sincere Christians.

I feel Christ is giving us Deity’s definition for “forgiveness” in Matt. 18:21-35, “The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant”.

Most commentaries give us what the parable does not say and only the ending “Moral to the Story” (forgive others) without getting into the factual details and explain what appears to be God taking back His forgiving.


We need to figure out the “question” the parable is addressing and the context.

Just prior to the parable we have:

Matt. 18: 21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”

Peter asks a good question and seems generous by providing his take on the answer of “is it seven times”, since three times is the Old Testament was given.

Christ makes a huge change by saying 77 times (virtually saying: “always”), so it is important to try to put yourself in their shoes hearing this idea for the first time, do you think the disciples would be thinking: “How is this change going to impact my life”, this is normal people’s thinking with new information. So will they will go on to think “How can I keep from being taken advantage of by brothers and sisters?”

We know from all other previous encounters: Jesus knowing their thinking, so He will address in a parable their problem with His previous answer, by giving them the true definition for “forgiveness”.


First off: This debt is totally unbelievably huge, no one has that kind of money to lend, no one could get into anywhere near this kind of “debt”, and there was no way to make that kind of payment. It is actually hard to believe one person could even spend this much money in a life time in the first century.

Matt 18:25 “Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered…” Here we know the Master knew there is no way to pay this debt and this servant entrusted with such a huge responsibility would also realize he could never pay it back.

Matt 18: 26 “…‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’” This servant is not asking for unconditional forgiveness, but “more time”, with the promise of paying it back in full, but the Master is not an idiot, the Master just previously said there is no way to pay this debt, and since this servant has been entrusted with and spent already 10,000 talents, he knows he cannot earn that amount. The servant is lying to the Master and maybe lying to himself.

When the Master: canceled (forgave) the debt and let him go, what did the servant “hear” (think) and possibly believe: “Oh the Master accepted my offer”, “I got time”, “I did OK”, “The Master does not care about the money”, or “the master must really like me”?

Luke 7: 36-50. Christ teaches us this truism: “He that is forgiven much Loves much” so Godly type Love would come automatically if a person was forgiven of an unbelievable huge Debt meaning he will automatically receiving an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love), so how is it possible for this “forgiven” servant to not Love one of the Master’s servants and treat him graciously?

Matt. 18: 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. There is no other debt mentioned, so this debt has to be referring to the debt the Master forgave, but if the debt is unconditionally forgiven how can the Master talk about the servant needing to pay it back in full, since it is a forgiven debt?

If we take all these Biblical truisms and allow them to define “Forgiveness” instead of taking our definition of forgiveness and force us to make an acceptation for God (Allow God to mislead us (lie)) Deity’s definition will resolve these apparent Biblical contradictions.

There is more to our having God’s forgiveness, than God just unconditional forgiving us, but this “more” will not mean God’s forgiving is conditional.

The “conditional” part for the potential receiver of forgiveness is found in completing the definition of forgiveness and not in the part the forgiver plays (God).

In order to complete the definition of Biblical forgiveness the person being forgiven has to humble accept that forgiveness as pure, undeserved charity.

The unmerciful servant did not humbly accept the Master’s unconditional forgiving as pure undeserved charity, so the transaction of forgiveness was not completed. We know this because he did not Love much and he still owes the money.

Again, it is not the Master taking His unconditional forgiveness back, but forgiveness itself, by definition did not happen.

How does this explanation address the question: “How can I keep from being taken advantage of by brothers and sisters?”

Are we responsible for following up on those we have forgiven to see if forgiveness took place?

Look back at the Prodigal son:

When did the Father, first forgive His young son?

When did the Father, let the son know he was being unconditionally forgiven?

When did the young son humbly accept the Father’s unconditional forgiveness as pure undeserved charity?

When was the son just willing to humbly accept the Father’s unbelievable, undeserved, unconditional charity?

Are we all already forgiven by God, yet some are still not accepting that charitable gift as pure undeserved charity?

As forgivers our responsibility does not begin and end with our forgiving our debtors, the parable shows there is more to it, we need to make sure the person being forgiven understands forgiveness and accepts the forgiveness as pure undeserved charity, so they can Love all the more.

 

[Tigger45]

All sin is against God, for it is his law we are breaking, not our law.

This is what I was referring.

James 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You are right to say I don’t want to go there. However, that doesn’t change the fact it doesn’t make sense. That’s like asking God to forgive your sin before you have repented of that sin.

Repentance and the consequent absolution IS distinct from reparations in the form of penance. I don't know how to get you to understand that, but absolution is not an earned thing. It is the generous forgiveness by God of us sinners who could never earn that forgiveness. We only need a contrite heart, and to confess our sins, renouncing them before God and the priest who hears our confession in the person of Christ.

Penance does not earn the absolution. It can't. Penance does make some repair for the damage we have done by our sins, but that 'debt' is not about earning absolution. Protestants rarely get that distinction and I'm not sure you do either. The distinction goes way back in Patristic theology and is actually first articulated in Latin by Tertullian. Look it up. Point being absolution comes first and then the penance. You can argue that penances are too milquetoast and I'd agree. Or that maybe for some sins we ought to confess in front of the whole assembly.

 

[Clare73]

All sin is against God, for it is his law we are breaking, not our law.

This is what I was referring.

James 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

I was stating that we do not sin against one another, all sin is against God.

 

[Tigger45]

I was stating that we do not sin against one another, all sin is against God.

I know, it just seems like a moot point.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Repentance and the consequent absolution IS distinct from reparations in the form of penance. I don't know how to get you to understand that, but absolution is not an earned thing. It is the generous forgiveness by God of us sinners who could never earn that forgiveness. We only need a contrite heart, and to confess our sins, renouncing them before God and the priest who hears our confession in the person of Christ.

Penance does not earn the absolution. It can't. Penance does make some repair for the damage we have done by our sins, but that 'debt' is not about earning absolution. Protestants rarely get that distinction and I'm not sure you do either. The distinction goes way back in Patristic theology and is actually first articulated in Latin by Tertullian. Look it up. Point being absolution comes first and then the penance. You can argue that penances are too milquetoast and I'd agree. Or that maybe for some sins we ought to confess in front of the whole assembly.

I don’t believe penance earns absolution either. Maybe I didn’t explain myself clearly enough. A person who doesn’t want to be absolved even though he is fully aware he has sinned, is unable to receive absolution. Refusing to repent is like saying, to quote Pete Townsend’s lyrics in Baba O’reilly, “I don’t need to be forgiven.” If you refuse to empty your cup of a poison liquid, knowing full well it is poison, God cannot fill your cup with fresh water. God can no more put water into a cup that is already full than he can make a square circle.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Which would not prove such practice is Biblical, only that it occurred.

You did not answer my question.

Jesus never referred to most of the Levitical law, including its proscription of homosexuality as sin in Leviticus 18:22.

Ok, remembered a perfect example of historical evidence for Christians confessing their sins to the entire congregation. That example is the Didache. If you never heard of it, the Didache is a first century Christian document also called “The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles.” It’s considered the original Christian Catechism.

Anyway, the relevant section is found in 14:1 where it is stated, “Every Lord’s day gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanks after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.” I hope you can see the “gathering yourselves together and break bread” instructions refers to the Sunday worship service where “all congregants” would be gathered and therefore the confession of transgressions were clearly done before the entire congregation.

BTW, I thought of a non-religious analogy to give some help with advancing your reading skills. It has to do with abortion rights in the United States.

Since the US Constitution was ratified, all of the states operated under the universal belief that the US Constitution did not grant a woman the right to procure an abortion. Are you really going to say that the belief of all the states does not prove there was never a constitutional right to have an abortion until the Roe v Wade decision invented the right? I would hope not. I hope that analogy helps.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I don’t believe penance earns absolution either.

Hey, we agree. The guy who does his assigned penances can quite possibly skip purgatory. And then we have the many indulgences earned by others that are applied to us. There are people who have already done reparations for us, so we don't have to do a year of street sweeping or peeling potatoes for our penance. Knowing that, we should look to do reparations for others in appreciation of what has already been done for us.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Hey, we agree. The guy who does his assigned penances can quite possibly skip purgatory. And then we have the many indulgences earned by others that are applied to us. There are people who have already done reparations for us, so we don't have to do a year of street sweeping or peeling potatoes for our penance. Knowing that, we should look to do reparations for others in appreciation of what has already been done for us.

It’s funny that you view purgatory as a negative thing. Why would you not want God to purify you. I am looking forward to it.

You still don’t understand what I am saying so I’ll try again because I can sense you are a sincere Christian despite your sarcasm.

OK. Let’s assume there is a doctor in your town who gives free medical services to the sick. Now let’s assume you are sick. The doctor cannot heal you by force. You have to acknowledge you are sick and accept the medical treatment.

In other words, Jesus does not force Salvation on anyone even though he loves that person. A person must freely admit their need to be saved as well as accept salvation. For example, many Protestants have a tradition of reciting the “Sinner’s Prayer” in order to be saved. That’s what I mean when I say you must repent to be forgiven. Or do you consider those kinds of Protestants to be heretics too?

One final thing, just as Jesus cannot force anyone to be saved, he also cannot stop anyone who chooses eternal damnation from being eternally damned despite his love for that person.

You probably still don’t agree with me, but maybe you at least understand me now.

 

[Clare73]

Ok, remembered a perfect example of historical evidence for Christians confessing their sins to the entire congregation. That example is the Didache. If you never heard of it, the Didache is a first century Christian document also called “The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles.” It’s considered the original Christian Catechism.
Anyway, the relevant section is found in 14:1 where it is stated, “Every Lord’s day gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanks after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.” I hope you can see the “gathering yourselves together and break bread” instructions refers to the Sunday worship service where “all congregants” would be gathered and therefore the confession of transgressions were clearly done before the entire congregation.

Good demonstration. . .thanks.

BTW, I thought of a non-religious analogy to give some help with advancing your reading skills. It has to do with abortion rights in the United States.
Since the US Constitution was ratified, all of the states operated under the universal belief that the US Constitution did not grant a woman the right to procure an abortion. Are you really going to say that the belief of all the states does not prove there was never a constitutional right to have an abortion until the Roe v Wade decision invented the right? I would hope not. I hope that analogy helps.

Okay, but the belief of the people is irrelevant there.
The only thing that proves there was never a Constitutional right is the Constitution itself, not the belief of people.
The Supreme Court decision was based on the Constitution, not the belief of the people.

 

[Clare73]

I know, it just seems like a moot point.

I hear you. . .but it may not be as moot as we think.

"Sinning against another person" removes the gravity of sin from the holiness of God to the offense of man, diminishing the importance of God and exalting the importance of man.

 

[rturner76]

Confess your sins, don't be shy. God will forgive you

 

[Daniel Peres]

Good demonstration. . .thanks.
Okay, but the belief of the people is irrelevant there.
The only thing that proves there was never a Constitutional right is the Constitution itself, not the belief of people.
The Supreme Court decision was based on the Constitution, not the belief of the people.

Actually the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade was not based on the constitution and that’s why it was overturned. A not so secret fact is that pro-abortion legal scholars like Alan Dershowitz have said for years that the Roe decision had no constitutional basis at all. They just wanted to force their ideology on the country. Lawyers like myself have known this for years. This overturning of Roe was really no surprise at all.

As for what people believe not having an effect on the interpretation of words, I’ll leave with this example. You probably know that scientifically, a tomato is a fruit. What you probably don’t know is that legally, in the United States, a tomato is a vegetable. The Supreme Court declared over 100 years ago that most people consider it a vegetable, so despite the scientific classification of fruit, for legal purposes it is a vegetable.

In case you’re wondering how this ever became an issue, it had to do with tax law. There was a certain tariff be imposed on vegetable imports.There was an importer of tomatoes who refused to pay the tariff because he said tomatoes were not vegetables. The Supreme Court decided that since most people used it like a vegetable, under the tariff law tomatoes would be considered vegetables. If I still haven’t convinced you, maybe at least I made you laugh with this bizarre true story.

 

[Clare73]

It’s funny that you view purgatory as a negative thing. Why would you not want God to purify you. I am looking forward to it.

Does not the blood of Jesus do that for all those in him? (Titus 2:14; 1 John 1:7; Hebrews 1:3)

 

[chevyontheriver]

It’s funny that you view purgatory as a negative thing. Why would you not want God to purify you. I am looking forward to it.

It's a relative negative compared to heaven, but quite positive considering the other permanent option.

You still don’t understand what I am saying so I’ll try again because I can sense you are a sincere Christian despite your sarcasm.

If you say I don't understand what you are saying, who am I to argue. As to sarcasm, be careful presuming to recognize that.

OK. Let’s assume there is a doctor in your town who gives free medical services to the sick. Now let’s assume you are sick. The doctor cannot heal you by force. You have to acknowledge you are sick and accept the medical treatment.

In other words, Jesus does not force Salvation on anyone even though he loves that person. A person must freely admit their need to be saved as well as accept salvation. For example, many Protestants have a tradition of reciting the “Sinner’s Prayer” in order to be saved. That’s what I mean when I say you must repent to be forgiven.

Of course God does not force salvation on anyone. God enables us to accept His free gifts.

Or do you consider those kinds of Protestants to be heretics too?

Where did THAT come from?

You probably still don’t agree with me, but maybe you at least understand me now.

No. My only substantial point was to say that absolution comes before penance chronologically and logically. Not much else. You read into that about who I think are heretics?

 

[Clare73]

Actually the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade was not based on the constitution and that’s why it was overturned.

Agreed. . .I was referencing the latest decision, not the Roe v Wade decision.

A not so secret fact is that pro-abortion legal scholars like Alan Dershowitz have said for years that the Roe decision had no constitutional basis at all. They just wanted to force their ideology on the country. Lawyers like myself have known this for years. This overturning of Roe was really no surprise at all.

As for what people believe not having an effect on the interpretation of words, I’ll leave with this example. You probably know that scientifically, a tomato is a fruit. What you probably don’t know is that legally, in the United States, a tomato is a vegetable. The Supreme Court declared over 100 years ago that most people consider it a vegetable, so despite the scientific classification of fruit, for legal purposes it is a vegetable.

In case you’re wondering how this ever became an issue, it had to do with tax law. There was a certain tariff be imposed on vegetable imports.There was an importer of tomatoes who refused to pay the tariff because he said tomatoes were not vegetables. The Supreme Court decided that since most people used it like a vegetable, under the tariff law tomatoes would be considered vegetables. If I still haven’t convinced you,
maybe at least I made you laugh with this bizarre true story.

You did, indeed.

However, the legal use of a word does not necessarily have to be the common use of a word, right?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I hear you. . .but it may not be as moot as we think.

"Sinning against another person" removes the gravity of sin from the holiness of God to the offense of man, diminishing the importance of God and exalting the importance of man.

While it is true that all sin is a trespass against God and His law; it's not as though Scripture doesn't also present us with the reality of how sin is injurious between people. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord says that if we have caused injury to our brother, we should go and make amends before bringing the offering to the Temple.

The role of Confession and Absolution deals with the vertical element of sin. But that doesn't change the fact that we have injured our friends, neighbors, our brothers, or sisters, etc. Which is why we still have to actually go and say sorry and make amends. If I steal your car, it is true enough that God forgives me, but I still have to return your car and otherwise make amends with you. We are still supposed to love our neighbor; but this is a matter of good works out of obedience rather than the mercy and forgiveness of the Gospel.

I disagree with Purgatory and with the temporal effects of sin continuing on after death needing to be dealt with in such a way; but I fully affirm that the horizontal life of the believer is a life set upon good works in relation to our neighbor. If I hurt you, I still have to apologize. And if I don't, I again sin against God.

Scripture presents Law and Gospel, and it speaks of both the vertical relationship (us and God) which is only through the Gospel and the horizontal relationship (us and neighbor) which is where the Third Use of the Law remains that we might live into good works for our neighbor.

It's not either/or, it's both-and. We are both justified fully by the grace of God on Christ's account, and God forgives us by His grace alone; and we are called to lives of obedience that we should love our neighbor.

The proper understanding of Law and Gospel depends on this. Otherwise we start to confuse Law and Gospel: That we are justified before God on the basis of our good works toward our neighbor or that we can simply live lawlessly in sin and that we're forgiven anyway so we don't actually have to be Christians.

-CryptoLutheran