Confession ...

[Mama Kidogo]

OK, I did indicate that it was an approximation.

Sixth Century, Seventh Century, we're on the same page as far as I'm concerned. One complication is that some sort of penance for grievous sins is even older, but that wouldn't be the private confession system to a priest we're talking about, and certainly not about the practice being considered a sacrament. That absolutely didn't happen for many more centuries.

Pretty much as we are both saying it began rather early on. I'd bet someone comes up with something earlier than mine or yours.

I see something that is disconcerting. It's almost as if priests are not consider a part of the people. Like some hierarchy makes them separate from the people. They are the servants of the servants. This was more about confidentiality than a hierarchy. One is more apt to confess freely and fully to God knowing it will not later come back to ruin them and their family.
I see this was done in a response to old husbands gossiping.(yes, they gossip too)

 

[Thekla]

I see something that is disconcerting. It's almost as if priests are not consider a part of the people. Like some hierarchy makes them separate from the people. They are the servants of the servants. This was more about confidentiality than a hierarchy. One is more apt to confess freely and fully to God knowing it will not later come back to ruin them and their family.
I see this was done in a response to old husbands gossiping.(yes, they gossip too)

Exactly they are "one of us/the whole" but with a particular role and charisma (and every priest and bishop I've met/known has been very approachable)

 

[stevenfrancis]

Exactly they are "one of us/the whole" but with a particular role and charisma (and every priest and bishop I've met/known has been very approachable)

Exactly. I am even friends with a couple of them. We do what friends do. We have coffee. We talk about lots of stuff. But when confecting the Holy Eucharist, or absolving me from sins, it is Jesus Christ doing this. The priest is standing in persona Christi.

 

[Albion]

Thanks so much. I see there are still things to put together and understand. You are all being very helpful, and I appreciate it.

I think next I must make sure I understand exactly how confession as a sacrament differs from confession in general.

A sacrament is something that delivers grace, and/or something with an invisible reality in addition to what is seen? I'm thinking then for example, that communion with belief in the Real Presence would be a sacrament, while communion as "symbolic only" would not?

No. Regardless of the interpretation (Real Presence vs. Symbolism only, etc.), the bread and wine are the outward, physical properties ("what is seen") that you're referring to.

A slightly different definition of a sacrament goes something like this:

It must:
-Give Grace
-Forgive sins
-Utilize physical properties, and
-Have been instituted by Christ.

Confession fails on the third point and perhaps on the last, which is why it is not considered a sacrament of the Gospel.

Use that framework on any other practice that some Christians here or there may say is a sacrament, and see if it actually is.

For example, is Footwashing a sacrament (some churches think so)?

Is hearing the sermon (some important Catholic theologians once thought it was)?

It should also be kept in mind that there are all sorts of meaningful and God-blessed events associated with our religion. Matrimony, for example. The fact that some of these are not sacraments doesn't mean that they are wrong or unimportant.

 

[~Anastasia~]

A slightly different definition of a sacrament goes something like this:

It must:
-Give Grace
-Forgive sins
-Utilize physical properties, and
-Have been instituted by Christ.

Thank your for the reply.

By this definition, there is no such thing as a sacrament then, according to most churches I have ever attended. According to those churches, there is no forgiveness of sins outside of confessing to God.

I have generally been taught that communion and baptism are the only things instituted by Christ. But there was no specific teaching that they were the means to forgive sins.

Whether or not grace was imparted was never discussed, that I can recall.

(It's a wonder that I look at communion as I do, though I never saw it as a means to forgiveness - I just took what I can recall in the Bible as true - I think my understanding, now that I see better what is taught - would be called Real Presence, but I don't know beyond that.)

Would that be correct then? There are no sacraments in the evangelical church? I am guessing that the Lutheran church would regard Baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments?

 

[stevenfrancis]

Thanks so much. I see there are still things to put together and understand. You are all being very helpful, and I appreciate it.

I think next I must make sure I understand exactly how confession as a sacrament differs from confession in general.

A sacrament is something that delivers grace, and/or something with an invisible reality in addition to what is seen? I'm thinking then for example, that communion with belief in the Real Presence would be a sacrament, while communion as "symbolic only" would not?

So then confession as a sacrament - is a means of bestowing grace? Not the same as whether or not absolution is given? Is it like a "credit" (forgive me for being crude, but I don't know how to ask?) in some way, or somehow increases a person's "level of grace"? (yes, I know, very crude, and I am sorry)

Whereas if one takes confession as being a way of being held accountable, or being transparent, as I suppose the Protestant church would, is not a sacrament then, and of no real credit to the soul, though it may be helpful?

I'm sorry, I think maybe this is very poorly asked, but I'm not sure I understand the different ways of looking at it?

Thank you so much for the replies.

"confession" in general can, and should be done by all Christians everywhere at the very second we become aware of our sin. Immediately. With honest sorrow and repentance.

The sacrament of reconciliation should be practiced at the first opportunity when a Priest is available. A Priest or a Bishop (who is also a Priest), acting in the charism spoken of above, with the power of binding and loosing inherited down the ages from the Apostles, and in the attitude of "In Persona Christi" can then absolve you of your sins, and Christ and the Apostles did throughout the NT scriptures. Part of the procedure is your own honest contrition, and sorrow. He then says "By the power of Christ, (not himself), you are absolved of your sins. It also removes temporal punishment for sin. The only thing remaining is the effect of sin, which is the penance part. If I break somebody's car window with a baseball bat, and am contrite, sorry, have confessed. Have been to the sacrament of reconciliation, then I am square with Jesus Christ who will forget that my sin ever happened. But there is still the matter of the broken window. I must replace the victims broken window, and deal with any charges they may wish to press regarding my action. Reconsiliation is not a civil/legal procedure. I may go to jail. But while I'm in jail, I'm pure as the driven snow, (until one sins again).

I hope this helps.
More reading. FAR more explanatory than I could come up with off the cuff.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of penance and reconciliation

 

[stevenfrancis]

No. Regardless of the interpretation (Real Presence vs. Symbolism only, etc.), the bread and wine are the outward, physical properties ("what is seen") that you're referring to.

A slightly different definition of a sacrament goes something like this:

It must:
-Give Grace
-Forgive sins
-Utilize physical properties, and
-Have been instituted by Christ.

Confession fails on the third point and perhaps on the last, which is why it is not considered a sacrament of the Gospel.

Use that framework on any other practice that some Christians here or there may say is a sacrament, and see if it actually is.

For example, is Footwashing a sacrament (some churches think so)?

Is hearing the sermon (some important Catholic theologians once thought it was)?

It should also be kept in mind that there are all sorts of meaningful and God-blessed events associated with our religion. Matrimony, for example. The fact that some of these are not sacraments doesn't mean that they are wrong or unimportant.

The sacraments are seven:
3 of initiation- Baptism, Confirmation (sealing of the Holy Spirit), and Holy Eucharist, (which is the only "ongoing" sacrament of initiation)

2 of vocation -Holy Orders, Matrimony

2 of Healing
Reconciliation
Viaticum (Healing of the sick) - previously referred to as "last rites"

All were instituted by Christ except Matrimony which was instituted by the Father and reiterated by Christ

All but one employ the use of physical matter (sacramentals) (Water, Oil, Wine/Bread, rings, and oil again)

I'm not sure about your definition or where you got it, but it's not the catholic definition.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

The sacraments are seven:
3 of initiation- Baptism, Confirmation (sealing of the Holy Spirit), and Holy Eucharist, (which is the only "ongoing" sacrament of initiation)

2 of vocation -Holy Orders, Matrimony

2 of Healing
Reconciliation
Viaticum (Healing of the sick) - previously referred to as "last rites"

All were instituted by Christ except Matrimony which was instituted by the Father and reiterated by Christ

All but one employ the use of physical matter (sacramentals) (Water, Oil, Wine/Bread, rings, and oil again)

I'm not sure about your definition or where you got it, but it's not the catholic definition.

I thought he was sharing his own beliefs (tradition of his community) or understanding.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The sacraments are seven:
3 of initiation- Baptism, Confirmation (sealing of the Holy Spirit), and Holy Eucharist, (which is the only "ongoing" sacrament of initiation)

2 of vocation -Holy Orders, Matrimony

2 of Healing
Reconciliation
Viaticum (Healing of the sick) - previously referred to as "last rites"

All were instituted by Christ except Matrimony which was instituted by the Father and reiterated by Christ

All but one employ the use of physical matter (sacramentals) (Water, Oil, Wine/Bread, rings, and oil again)

I'm not sure about your definition or where you got it, but it's not the catholic definition.

Thank you for your post.

I see now - different definitions of the term "sacrament". I know marriage was referred to as a sacrament in one of my churches.

Back to making it difficult to communicate, if we each of us have different definitions for words. I will work backward and try to figure out what I was trying to understand. It was a minor point, as I'm more interested in all the questions surrounding confession in general.

Thank you again for your posts.

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure about your definition or where you got it, but it's not the catholic definition.

Then let's clear that up. It WAS the Roman Catholic version that I was using there.

Whether or not all of the "seven sacraments" meet the church's own definition of a sacrament is another matter.

 

[Albion]

Thank your for the reply.

By this definition, there is no such thing as a sacrament then, according to most churches I have ever attended. According to those churches, there is no forgiveness of sins outside of confessing to God.

Well, I don't know that we can say that categorically. As we've already discussed, one is saved by Faith. But we do fall and sin in our lifetimes, for which we want God's reassurance of his forgiveness. The sacraments are not short cuts to salvation or a substitute or replacement for saving Faith. But they do convey God's forgiveness to the recipient just as they give grace for daily living. FWIW, this question has been put to theologians many times and they do not see any contradiction.

I have generally been taught that communion and baptism are the only things instituted by Christ.

That is indeed what most churches say.

But there was no specific teaching that they were the means to forgive sins.

Ah, but if you read the verses in Scripture that deal with each of them, you will find it mentioned.

Whether or not grace was imparted was never discussed, that I can recall.

Not by that word, but Christians have long believed that blessings accompany the reception of them and that the way Christ instituted each of them suggests this.

I realize that some of this is a grey area. It's always been that way with Christians, too. While Baptism and the Lord's Supper have been recognized by the church since the beginning, the exact standing and meaning of them and other similar observances has been a hot topic ever since.

We can see that on the forums here. There are fewer subjects more nit-picked than the meaning and administration of Baptism and the Holy Communion, and that's to say nothing of the other one, five, or thirty acts that someone or other in Christian history has called a "sacrament."

Would that be correct then? There are no sacraments in the evangelical church?

Virtually every Evangelical church recognizes two sacraments, although some of them prefer to call them "ordinances."

There are only two well-known churches out of tens of thousands of Protestant churches that DO NOT consider these two (Baptism and the Supper) to be sacraments or ordinances: the Quakers and the Salvation Army. Throw in the Unitarians, too, if you wish, but most people don't consider the Unitarians to be Protestant any longer.

As I said in my last post, I am guessing that the Lutheran church would regard Baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments?

Absolutely. There's no question about it.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Then let's clear that up.

Thank you. I thought it was yours.(your church).

 

[concretecamper]

It must:
-Give Grace
-Forgive sins
-Utilize physical properties, and
-Have been instituted by Christ.
.

This is not the RCC definition of a Sacrament (past, present, or future)

 

[Albion]

This is not the RCC definition of a Sacrament.

Ya. It is.

That's exactly where I got it from. If you don't recognize it, I can't account for that. How much Catholic education have you had?

 

[Tangible]

This is not the RCC definition of a Sacrament (past, present, or future)

Perhaps not of the RCC, but it has been the definition of a Sacrament since very early in the history of the Church as a whole. Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum.

 

[MoreCoffee]

A sacrament is an efficacious sign of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us through the work of the Holy Spirit. The sacraments (called “mysteries” in the Eastern Churches) are seven in number: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance or Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. (CCC Glossary)

 

[Albion]

Perhaps not of the RCC, but it has been the definition of a Sacrament since very early in the history of the Church as a whole. Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum.

Chances are he picked up some other explanation in a church publication and doesn't recognize that they agree.

 

[stan1953]

The NT tells us to confess our sins to one another, that whatever sins are forgiven and what is retained is retained.

Yes it does, and I have addressed that in this thread. You may want to go back and read them.
The specific verse, John 20:23, you are referring to was NOT to establish confessional authority. It was directly at the apostles. The apostles, as the founders of the church and acting for it, receive the authority to declare God’s judgment on sins. Fundamentally, this declaration is made in the preaching of the gospel.

 

[concretecamper]

Ya. It is.

That's exactly where I got it from. If you don't recognize it, I can't account for that. How much Catholic education have you had?

If it weren't so sad... it would be funny.

 

[stan1953]

So a teacher of Israel was not a spiritual teacher?

A teacher/Rabbi of Israel taught the written law which is no longer applicable to Christians. We are now taught by God's word and by the Holy Spirit. In that vein or sense, there are no teachers/Rabbi but God. As well, Rabbi means "My Master", and God is our only master when it comes to spiritual things.
The RSB states
In forbidding the use of the titles “Rabbi” (v. 8), “father” (v. 9), and “instructors” (lit. “leaders,” v. 10), Jesus does not prohibit organization or the use of all titles in the church (cf. Acts 20:17; 1 Cor. 9:1; 1 Tim. 3:1, 2, 8, 12; Titus 1:5–7). His warning is against the temptation to accord human leaders the authority and prerogatives that belong to God alone—a temptation here exemplified by the use of pretentious forms of address.