DRIVE THRU CONFESSION???

bbbbbbb said:

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.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that most of James is aimed at the spiritual health of a congregation and exhorting them to do certain things to become healthier. So I am not sure that we can take this part of this chapter and make it completely about physical health. Here is the ESV version of this section of chapter 5:

"13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray.
Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise.

14 Is anyone 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 one who is sick, 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 person has great power as it is working.

17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. 18 Then he prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth bore its fruit."

It seems that James is making the same parallel that Jesus did when asked to heal the paralyzed man lowered into the synagogue. He equated physical sickness being caused by sin and offered a way to have the elders come and anoint and pray for this person to be restored to health. You see if we take verses 14 through 16 as referring to a singular event then the people involved are the sick person and the elders throughout this section. So the prayer and the anointing are seen as separate acts but they have a common aim, to restore the sick person to health. Anointing with oil was seen as having physical benefits at that time; but the "prayer of faith" is called that which saves the sick person and causes forgiveness of sins. It then goes on to generalize this and exhort all to confess their sins to one another and pray for one another to be healed. Are all of these people supposed to be bedridden and sick or does this generalization extend the concept beyond physical health to spiritual health and sin in general as the cause of the lack of it.

In summary, is it wrong to read this section and set up a function of the office of elder to see the sick and anoint and pray for them, as well as listening to confessions and praying for the sinner and offering God's forgiveness to the assembly in general? Both of these acts seems to be tied together in this section and I read the context as supporting auricular confession. After all, the sinner is exhorted to confess their sins to one another and that commands a vocal recitation. As well, there are listeners at this recitation that are called to pray for forgiveness for the sins committed by the person involved. This listener is called an elder at the start of this section and is called a righteous person at the end. So, to me, this refers to a common set with the elders being the righteous people praying for healing.

God bless you and keep you healthy today,
Byron

tz620q said:

It seems to me that most of James is aimed at the spiritual health of a congregation and exhorting them to do certain things to become healthier. So I am not sure that we can take this part of this chapter and make it completely about physical health. Here is the ESV version of this section of chapter 5:

"13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray.
Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise.

14 Is anyone 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 one who is sick, 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 person has great power as it is working.

17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. 18 Then he prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth bore its fruit."

It seems that James is making the same parallel that Jesus did when asked to heal the paralyzed man lowered into the synagogue. He equated physical sickness being caused by sin and offered a way to have the elders come and anoint and pray for this person to be restored to health. You see if we take verses 14 through 16 as referring to a singular event then the people involved are the sick person and the elders throughout this section. So the prayer and the anointing are seen as separate acts but they have a common aim, to restore the sick person to health. Anointing with oil was seen as having physical benefits at that time; but the "prayer of faith" is called that which saves the sick person and causes forgiveness of sins. It then goes on to generalize this and exhort all to confess their sins to one another and pray for one another to be healed. Are all of these people supposed to be bedridden and sick or does this generalization extend the concept beyond physical health to spiritual health and sin in general as the cause of the lack of it.

Click to expand...

I agree that in the Bible there is a direct relationship between physical illness and sin. However, Jesus said that not all illness is the result of sin (cf. the healing of the lame man at the pool of Bethsaida). James, as we see clearly here, does connect physical illness with sin. This is a man who is physically ill and who calls for the elders who, in turn, pray for him, anointing him with oil (a physical remedy for many physical illnesses). James, in turn, says that IF he has committed sins he will be forgiven. James then makes a broader application concerning confession - we are to confess our sins to one another (not the elders, not a priest, but to one another) and to pray for one another so that we may be healed (certainly an appropriate course of action today with the coronavirus pandemic).

James, BTW, does not mention anything about seeking medical treatment which some have taken to mean that James believed that confession, anointing, and prayer were solely sufficient for physical healing and that he rejected medical treatment. Most Christians, however, disagree, preferring to believe that James did not forbid such treatment in his instructions. The first interpretation (medical treatment forbidden) is a classic argument from silence.

It is readily apparent that various interpretations have been made from this passage. Did James have the Catholic Rite of Reconciliation in mind when he wrote these verses?

bbbbbbb said:

I agree that in the Bible there is a direct relationship between physical illness and sin. However, Jesus said that not all illness is the result of sin (cf. the healing of the lame man at the pool of Bethsaida). James, as we see clearly here, does connect physical illness with sin. This is a man who is physically ill and who calls for the elders who, in turn, pray for him, anointing him with oil (a physical remedy for many physical illnesses). James, in turn, says that IF he has committed sins he will be forgiven. James then makes a broader application concerning confession - we are to confess our sins to one another (not the elders, not a priest, but to one another) and to pray for one another so that we may be healed (certainly an appropriate course of action today with the coronavirus pandemic).

James, BTW, does not mention anything about seeking medical treatment which some have taken to mean that James believed that confession, anointing, and prayer were solely sufficient for physical healing and that he rejected medical treatment. Most Christians, however, disagree, preferring to believe that James did not forbid such treatment in his instructions. The first interpretation (medical treatment forbidden) is a classic argument from silence.

It is readily apparent that various interpretations have been made from this passage. Did James have the Catholic Rite of Reconciliation in mind when he wrote these verses?

Click to expand...

Let's start with taking the proposal at hand and flipping it to it's negative corollary. Did James have in mind for a person to confess their sins directly to God alone without seeking anyone's help and prayers. Obviously not, but theologically speaking, I hope that no Catholic condemns a person who does this and flatly says that there is no way God will listen to them and forgive them. We do not rule on the efficacy of this, because we realize that this is between God and the sinner and God can chose to work outside of the sacrament.
However, it does seems apparent from this passage that James is setting up some form of corporate calling for healing by those who are ill, both physically and spiritually. The form of this rite has changed over time; but it seems that it takes at least two people to do what James exhorts to do, a sinner and a listener to pray for the sinner. The early church took this literally as meaning to confess ones sins in the assembly in front of everyone. Now that would be a source of great trepidation for the sinner and maybe that is what is needed. But I think the early church rightly saw this practice as having two ill affects. It caused the sinner to balk at asking for help and it caused the listeners to judge and condemn the sinner. These two human faults could not be ignored and the one on one confession is the result of acknowledging this. I think we are left today with three possibilities. Ignore James and confess straight to God always. Do as the early church and vocally recite our sins to the congregation. Or try to fulfill James' intent without causing scandal and offer private confession to a priest or other spiritual leader.

tz620q said:

Let's start with taking the proposal at hand and flipping it to it's negative corollary. Did James have in mind for a person to confess their sins directly to God alone without seeking anyone's help and prayers. Obviously not, but theologically speaking, I hope that no Catholic condemns a person who does this and flatly says that there is no way God will listen to them and forgive them. We do not rule on the efficacy of this, because we realize that this is between God and the sinner and God can chose to work outside of the sacrament.
However, it does seems apparent from this passage that James is setting up some form of corporate calling for healing by those who are ill, both physically and spiritually. The form of this rite has changed over time; but it seems that it takes at least two people to do what James exhorts to do, a sinner and a listener to pray for the sinner. The early church took this literally as meaning to confess ones sins in the assembly in front of everyone. Now that would be a source of great trepidation for the sinner and maybe that is what is needed. But I think the early church rightly saw this practice as having two ill affects. It caused the sinner to balk at asking for help and it caused the listeners to judge and condemn the sinner. These two human faults could not be ignored and the one on one confession is the result of acknowledging this. I think we are left today with three possibilities. Ignore James and confess straight to God always. Do as the early church and vocally recite our sins to the congregation. Or try to fulfill James' intent without causing scandal and offer private confession to a priest or other spiritual leader.

Click to expand...

There is also a fourth (among other) alternative, which is to call for the elders of the church when you are sick and have them come to your bedside, anoint you with oil and pray for you. If you have committed sins you will be forgiven. To me, that seems the best application of the passage.

bbbbbbb said:

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.

Click to expand...

Now you're reply is just pointless unjustified assertions.

concretecamper said:

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

Click to expand...

I do because the Catechism of the Catholic Church says what I said.

GodsGrace101 said:

What does the CCC say about confession?
Do you know the history of confession??

Click to expand...

1424 It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament. In a profound sense it is also a "confession" - acknowledgment and praise - of the holiness of God and of his mercy toward sinful man.
It is called the sacrament of forgiveness, since by the priest's sacramental absolution God grants the penitent "pardon and peace."6
It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation, because it imparts to the sinner the life of God who reconciles: "Be reconciled to God."7 He who lives by God's merciful love is ready to respond to the Lord's call: "Go; first be reconciled to your brother."8

...

Only God forgives sin

1441 Only God forgives sins.39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven."40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.41

1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."42 The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."43

GingerBeer said:

1424 It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament. In a profound sense it is also a "confession" - acknowledgment and praise - of the holiness of God and of his mercy toward sinful man.
It is called the sacrament of forgiveness, since by the priest's sacramental absolution God grants the penitent "pardon and peace."6
It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation, because it imparts to the sinner the life of God who reconciles: "Be reconciled to God."7 He who lives by God's merciful love is ready to respond to the Lord's call: "Go; first be reconciled to your brother."8

...

Only God forgives sin

1441 Only God forgives sins.39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven."40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.41

1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."42 The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."43

Click to expand...

All you've shown is that people misinterpret the CCC just as well as they do scripture. Curious that you did copy and paste 1448.

GodsGrace101 said:

You and I can reconcile the two...
but do you think everyone can?

Click to expand...

It depends on the biases of the person reading the CCC. The distinction between the sacramental absolution and God's act of forgiveness is stated clearly enough but some see no distinction for whatever reasons they may have. It is better to take what is written at face value since the rest of Catholic theology is strongly opposed to any concept that places a sacrament in the active role that God alone can take.

GodsGrace101 said:

What's the problem with not having posted
paragraph 1448??

Here it is:

1448 Beneath the changes in discipline and celebration that this sacrament has undergone over the centuries, the same fundamental structure is to be discerned. It comprises two equally essential elements: on the one hand, the acts of the man who undergoes conversion through the action of the Holy Spirit: namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction; on the other, God's action through the intervention of the Church. The Church, who through the bishop and his priests forgives sins in the name of Jesus Christ and determines the manner of satisfaction, also prays for the sinner and does penance with him. Thus the sinner is healed and re-established in ecclesial communion.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the perceived problem is that 1448 says that the church (through the bishop and his priests) forgives sins. That is only a problem if the preceding words are omitted "God's action ...". It is as the other paragraphs state God who forgives sins. ... 1441 Only God forgives sins.39
39 is a reference to this passage from scripture:

Perhaps some might find this helpful - Sacerdotalism - Wikipedia

Wherever someone is unable to understand the CCC, I always refer to the Baltimore Catechism. It is simple Q&A. It is something used when I was in grade school so hopefully all here will understand. This question addresses both points I made.

Q. 726. What is Absolution?

A. Absolution is the form of prayer or words the priest pronounces over us with uplifted hand when he forgives the sins we have confessed. It is given while we are saying the Act of Contrition after receiving our Penance.

QED

GodsGrace101 said:

Hamlet, I know about the authority of the CC....I know it's the original church and I believe Peter is the rock Jesus was referring to and I know Jesus gave him the keys, which represent authority.

There's some question as to whether or not the authority ended with the Apostles. If you know the history of confession, then you know that it was not practiced by the ECFs.

Click to expand...

A cursory look found quite a few quotes from Church Fathers about the importance of confessing sins, but we can leave this aside, since I sense it's not really important.

GodsGrace101 said:

Sure,,,and I'm not saying that I disagree. I just wonder if maybe confession will not be abolished eventually. Did you know that every now and then the church considers baptizing only adults? But it feels its too drastic a move and will not be accepted.

Click to expand...

Never heard this. Infant baptism is biblical and it's been defended by Fathers since Origen.

GodsGrace101 said:

Amen, yes He will.
I'm sure you know there's confession of desire (this might not be the right name -- not sure)...this is valid even for mortal sin....A contrite confession is made to God and then confession to a pries when possible -- even if the person never made it to a priest, they would still be forgiven.

I must say, however, that many believe that the church is doing the forgiving and not God. I believe the younger generation understands this better than the older generation --- at least here in Italy.

The priest of the church I attend, who is also a friend of the family, told me to listen to Mass on the TV when I told him I would no longer be going to Mass (he knows why)....he keeps reassuring me that Jesus loves me anyway -- he's very pastoral and is a very nice person and helps the poor as much as he can.

I find priests to be much better pastors today than when I was growing up in the hell fire and brimstone days. Although I always felt love from God and did not fear Him.

Click to expand...

"Confession of desire" is a decent term for it, as it's analogous to Baptism of Desire.

Hamlet7768 said:

A cursory look found quite a few quotes from Church Fathers about the importance of confessing sins, but we can leave this aside, since I sense it's not really important.

Never heard this. Infant baptism is biblical and it's been defended by Fathers since Origen.

"Confession of desire" is a decent term for it, as it's analogous to Baptism of Desire.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Pretty soon we may have all of the Catholic sacraments done "by desire".