DRIVE THRU CONFESSION???

GodsGrace101 · Apr 5, 2020

GingerBeer said:
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:

[7] Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone? [8] And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, Why do you question these things in your hearts? [9] Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Rise, take up your bed and walk? [10] But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins—he said to the paralytic— [11] I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.
(Mark 2:7-11)

Actually, many of my catholic friends DO believe that it's the church that forgives...which, in a communal way, is kind of true.

This even though priests say constantly that it is God that forgives. Unfortunately, the CC does not do enough teaching for those that just attend church on Sunday....if they don't go to a bible study, they're in the dark about many concepts.

I believe priests should teach at Mass, but I've been told it's not a classroom...however, Mitch Pacwah had no problem with doing the Mass AND teaching in the homily.

Apparently this is a skill not all priests have...

GodsGrace101 · Apr 5, 2020

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.

Actually, I find this VERY important...
If you had found any quotes, I would have been very interested in seeing them. The ECFs would be those to 325AD...and regarding confession, it would have to be the Apostolic Fathers because by 325AD confession had already changed into more of what we have now.

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

Sure,,,,even before Origen infants were baptized, but not for the reason they were AFTER Augustine.
Do a small study on this. Since you're Catholic you should really come to know this...If you wish to discuss, I'd be happy to.

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

Yes, I can't remember what it's called, but you understand what I meant.

Augustine and Original Sin is important to know.....

Hamlet7768 · Apr 5, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
Actually, I find this VERY important...
If you had found any quotes, I would have been very interested in seeing them. The ECFs would be those to 325AD...and regarding confession, it would have to be the Apostolic Fathers because by 325AD confession had already changed into more of what we have now.

Ask and you shall receive: https://sophiainstituteforteachers..../six-early-church-fathers-on-confession/print

Though Tertullian and Origen aren't saints, their testimony as Fathers is still valuable (and I personally think Origen got the shaft, but that's off-topic). Chrysostom is after your cutoff date, I admit, but that still leaves five solid testimonies. Hippolytus's testimony is rather interesting, since he was himself an antipope who repented of his schism and died alongside the true pope (Pontian) as a martyr in Sardinia. A little-known, but inspiring story of the Early Church, that.

GodsGrace101 · Apr 5, 2020

Hamlet7768 said:
Ask and you shall receive: https://sophiainstituteforteachers..../six-early-church-fathers-on-confession/print

Though Tertullian and Origen aren't saints, their testimony as Fathers is still valuable (and I personally think Origen got the shaft, but that's off-topic). Chrysostom is after your cutoff date, I admit, but that still leaves five solid testimonies. Hippolytus's testimony is rather interesting, since he was himself an antipope who repented of his schism and died alongside the true pope (Pontian) as a martyr in Sardinia. A little-known, but inspiring story of the Early Church, that.

Thanks Hamlet.
Ignatius (of antioch) was taught by Peter and also knew John.

What does this mean? That all protestants are lost?
This is the biggest problem I had in leaving the Catholic Church -- I could deal with all the rest. Even Mary - unless they want to make her co-redemptrix, I think that's going too far.

I'll be checking out the story of Hippolytus..
who learned from Irenaeus
who learned from Polycarp
who learned from John

Yeah. Two degrees of separation!
And Sardinia (Sardegna) is an island off the coast from where I live. And a beautiful place it is!

Thanks again...!

bbbbbbb · Apr 5, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
I read this twice and am still not sure what you mean...

You said:
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.

But the CC does say that God gives grace through sacraments... This IS an active role.
I think you mean the opposite.....
??

You have put your finger on the problem which confronts most of non-Catholics, which is very outspoken Catholics such as GingerBeer and concretecamper who say precisely opposite things and then accuse us for being ignorant. BTW, neither of them is incorrect because the Catholic Church is quite notorious for making quite opposite statements, as we have seen in the various Catholic documents that have been quoted thus far.

concretecamper · Apr 5, 2020

bbbbbbb said:
which is very outspoken Catholics such as GingerBeer

are you sure gingerbeer is Catholic?

concretecamper · Apr 5, 2020

bbbbbbb said:
because the Catholic Church is quite notorious for making quite opposite statements, as we have seen in the various Catholic documents that have been quoted thus far.

baseless accusation, but feel free to prove it.

GodsGrace101 · Apr 6, 2020

bbbbbbb said:
You have put your finger on the problem which confronts most of non-Catholics, which is very outspoken Catholics such as GingerBeer and concretecamper who say precisely opposite things and then accuse us for being ignorant. BTW, neither of them is incorrect because the Catholic Church is quite notorious for making quite opposite statements, as we have seen in the various Catholic documents that have been quoted thus far.

Hey b,
I know the problem quite well, if you've been reading along.

I do think Catholics should be outspoken...most of the ones I know personally are not even familiar with their faith, which is unfortunate.

The Catholic church does have a lot of good teachings, but they're mixed in with some that do not appear, at least to me, to be biblical.

And some I question still after many years,,,for instance confession. I don't know how anyone could be absolutely sure about this. It does seem that Jesus passed this authority on to the Apostles,,,and then through the laying on of hands, to the others that came after (priests).

OTOH,,,,the New Covenant includes the Holy Spirit which gives each person the privilege of knowing the Holy Spirit for themselves....Jeremiah 31 (? 33).

I just find it unfortunate that the reformation had to be necessary....I wish the CC had stayed pure as in its early days.

GodsGrace101 · Apr 6, 2020

concretecamper said:
baseless accusation, but feel free to prove it.

The above is for @bbbbbbb --- but

Have you ever taught from the CCC?
Have you ever had persons approach you because they felt some paragraphs were conflicting?

You want some documents to prove conflicts?
Try Amoris Laetitia.....
Could remarrieds receive communion?
Are you sure about your response?

Try JDDJ Joint Document on the Doctrine of Justification signed with the Lutheran church in 1999 (I believe).

It states that the CC agrees regarding Justification...
Then in a post script it states that it has NOT changed its position on this matter.

If the two above are not confusing, then I don't know what is.

tz620q · Apr 6, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
Interesting post.
Other than that, one must follow his conscience.
Do you know that the Orthodox are not required to confess to a priest?

They do have confession though and the recommended frequency varies among groups. If you mean required like in the yearly requirement with Catholicism, then I think it is a matter of semantics. While Catholicism calls it a requirement, they don't prohibit anyone from communion if they have not confessed in a year. Likewise, the Orthodox recognize that confession is necessary to restore a person to communion with God and the church. So there calling it a recommendation is merely a softer word for a similar "requirement".

GodsGrace101 said:
It does seem that the CC is the only denomination that requires this. Do you think it might change with the shortage of priests? (I'm thinking of mortal sins only).

No, what I have seen is more rites of reconciliation where a whole congregation will go one night for a message on the nature of confession followed by having several priests hearing confession individually for as long as it takes to get through those who are seeking reconciliation. This compresses the time required in the confessional by the priest and allows other parish priests to help out during this rite.

GodsGrace101 · Apr 6, 2020

tz620q said:
They do have confession though and the recommended frequency varies among groups. If you mean required like in the yearly requirement with Catholicism, then I think it is a matter of semantics. While Catholicism calls it a requirement, they don't prohibit anyone from communion if they have not confessed in a year. Likewise, the Orthodox recognize that confession is necessary to restore a person to communion with God and the church. So there calling it a recommendation is merely a softer word for a similar "requirement".

No, what I have seen is more rites of reconciliation where a whole congregation will go one night for a message on the nature of confession followed by having several priests hearing confession individually for as long as it takes to get through those who are seeking reconciliation. This compresses the time required in the confessional by the priest and allows other parish priests to help out during this rite.

Agreed on the second paragraph.
Maybe it'll just stay like this.

As to the first paragraph, I do believe that confession is totally voluntary and has NO recommendations,,,but I'm not knowledgeable enough to discuss this...I only know the Catholic doctrine. For the Orthodox I'm relying on an acquaintance that was a missionary and he had told me that confession is totally voluntary but that he found it very useful in his spiritual growth.

concretecamper · Apr 6, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
Have you ever taught from the CCC?

yes

GodsGrace101 said:
Have you ever had persons approach you because they felt some paragraphs were conflicting

yes, but if you know the faith, you can easily clear up the apparent conflict.

GodsGrace101 said:
You want some documents to prove conflicts?
Try Amoris Laetitia.....
Could remarrieds receive communion?
Are you sure about your response?

Amoris Laetitia doesnt change a thing about Catholic teaching. Was the content confusing with lots of gray, yes, but it didnt change anything.

GodsGrace101 said:
Try JDDJ Joint Document on the Doctrine of Justification signed with the Lutheran church in 1999 (I believe).

the JDDJ is ecumenical hogwash and doesnt change a thing about Catholic teaching.

If I can help in any other way, please let me know.

GodsGrace101 · Apr 6, 2020

concretecamper said:
yes
yes, but if you know the faith, you can easily clear up the apparent conflict.

Amoris Laetitia doesnt change a thing about Catholic teaching. Was the content confusing with lots of gray, yes, but it didnt change anything.
the JDDJ is ecumenical hogwash and doesnt change a thing about Catholic teaching.

I agree with the CCC,,,the point is that it should NOT be confusing to ANYONE...

Amoris Laetitia caused an uproar that is still not settled.
Many remarrieds are receiving communion here in Italy.

And the JDDJ is hogwash --- OK,,,but then why participate?? And why make it SOUND like the CC is agreeing with Lutherans when in reality the little paragraph down at the end says it is NOT?

THIS was my whole point!!

concretecamper · Apr 6, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
Amoris Laetitia caused an uproar that is still not settled.
Many remarrieds are receiving communion here in Italy.

it is causing an uproar because the content isn't clear. I believe it is unclear on purpose. But it did not change any official Catholic teaching. Being remarried isn't necessarily a sin. And I am sure there were plenty of Italians in invalid second marriages receiving the Eucharist before AL.

GodsGrace101 said:
but then why participate??

Ecumenism

GodsGrace101 said:
And why make it SOUND like the CC is agreeing with Lutherans when in reality the little paragraph down at the end says it is NOT?

what in the JDDJ did the Catholic Church say that you disagree with?

GodsGrace101 · Apr 6, 2020

concretecamper said:
it is causing an uproar because the content isn't clear. I believe it is unclear on purpose. But it did not change any official Catholic teaching. Being remarried isn't a sin. And I am sure there were plenty of Italians in invalid second marriages receiving the Eucharist before AL.

CC,
The content not being clear is the problem I'm speaking about.

Now, you say it did not change catholic teaching...but then why are remarrieds receiving communion?

And you think a person could be remarried and receive communion??? Being remarried while a spouse is still alive is a mortal sin that cannot even be forgiven.

Ecumenism
what in the JDDJ did the Catholic Church say that you disagree with?[/QUOTE]
I'll look it up right after dinner....
but it states that the CC agrees about justification...
and then there's a footnote that states that the CC is not changing its doctrine of justification.

How is THAT not conflicting?

I found this for now...I believe there's another paragraph about this...

- "Where, however, Lutheran teaching construes the relation of God to his human creatures in justification with such emphasis on the divine 'monergism' or the sole efficacy of Christ in such a way, that the person's willing acceptance of God's grace - which is itself a gift of God - has no essential role in justification, then the Tridentine canons 4, 5, 6 and 9 still constitute a notable doctrinal difference on justification" (PCPCU 22).

source: Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

concretecamper · Apr 6, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
Now, you say it did not change catholic teaching...but then why are remarrieds receiving communion?

People in invalid second marriages were receiving communion prior to AL. The unclear presentation surely made them feel better doing so. But IT DID NOT CHANGE CATHOLIC TEACHING.

GodsGrace101 said:
And you think a person could be remarried and receive communion??? Being remarried while a spouse is still alive is a mortal sin that cannot even be forgiven.

Being in an invalid second marriage and receiving communion is a mortal sin. I would be careful how you frame your argument. Saying "being remarried while a spouse is still alive is a mortal sin" is not a correct statement.

GodsGrace101 said:
- "Where, however, Lutheran teaching construes the relation of God to his human creatures in justification with such emphasis on the divine 'monergism' or the sole efficacy of Christ in such a way, that the person's willing acceptance of God's grace - which is itself a gift of God - has no essential role in justification, then the Tridentine canons 4, 5, 6 and 9 still constitute a notable doctrinal difference on justification" (PCPCU 22).

Please quote from the JDDJ Document itself rather than someone's opinion and then we will take an honest look at it.

concretecamper · Apr 6, 2020

The Church teaches we are saved by Grace.

Some Canons on Justification for you to consider

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema. CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

GodsGrace101 · Apr 6, 2020

concretecamper said:
People in invalid second marriages were receiving communion prior to AL. The unclear presentation surely made them feel better doing so. But IT DID NOT CHANGE CATHOLIC TEACHING.
Being in an invalid second marriage and receiving communion is a mortal sin. I would be careful how you frame your argument. Saying "being remarried while a spouse is still alive is a mortal sin" is not a correct statement.

Please quote from the JDDJ Document itself rather than someone's opinion and then we will take an honest look at it.

OK...I'll repeat it:
Being remarried while a spouse is still alive IS A MORTAL SIN. What is not correct about this statement?

I did quote from the JDDJ...I even gave you the source..how is this someone's opinion???

concretecamper · Apr 6, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
Being remarried while a spouse is still alive IS A MORTAL SIN. What is not correct about this statement?

it doesn't consider the possbility that the first marriage was invalid.

GodsGrace101 said:
- "Where, however, Lutheran teaching construes the relation of God to his human creatures in justification with such emphasis on the divine 'monergism' or the sole efficacy of Christ in such a way, that the person's willing acceptance of God's grace - which is itself a gift of God - has no essential role in justification, then the Tridentine canons 4, 5, 6 and 9 still constitute a notable doctrinal difference on justification" (PCPCU 22).

Ok, let's try it this way, what do you think the Church is agreeing to that is different than what She has always taught?

GodsGrace101 · Apr 6, 2020

concretecamper said:
it doesn't consider the possbility that the first marriage was invalid.

Ok, let's try it this way, what do you think the Church is agreeing to that is different than what She has always taught?

OK. I agree. If the first marriage is annulled, then the persons were NEVER MARRIED. I was speaking about married persons. Persons with a valid marriage, whose spouse has not died, cannot remarry. If they do, they are living in mortal sin every day.

I really dislike this doctrine, but Jesus Himself stated this, so I'm quite conflicted by this teaching.

As to the JDDJ, I didn't say the church changed anything. What I said is that it proclaimed in one of those paragraphs that the CC and Lutheran church agreed to something or other...but then at the Post Scripts it was stated that really nothing had changed about that teaching...

This causes a conflict...just like Amoris Laetitia does.
I was saying that the church does not make TEACHING CLEAR when it does this type of turn-around.

DRIVE THRU CONFESSION???

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

World's Second-Worst Polemicist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Similar threads