One Catholic’s Honest Criticism about Sacrament of Confession

[Daniel Peres]

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.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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.

I think what you are saying is the current Catholic practice of confession is too soft and the Protestants made it way softer. I suppose I would agree. But there is one point of yours which I might question. And that is that a penance has to be completed before absolution. I don't think you really want to go there. I agree that penances are awfully soft, but the idea of a penance is not to deserve an absolution, but the separate reparations for the damage the sin caused. Being restored to community only after penance is complete does make sense, but withholding absolution until then does not.

 

[tampasteve]

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.

Most Protestants practice both personal confession as well as having a corporate confession in the service or liturgy. Further, even some Lutheran's practice confession to a pastor. The reasoning behind doing confession in this manner is not the same as Catholics, but it remains.

Saying "they simply do away with the practice" is not really accurate.

By the reasoning above no-one is "doing" confession "right". Perhaps a more in depth study of both practices would be a good idea. How do both Protestants and Catholics understand forgiveness and the entire practice of confession and absolution? Making it super simple as "they do it that way" misses the deeper understandings on why each side does it the way they do as there are theological reasons.

 

[Daniel Peres]

I think what you are saying is the current Catholic practice of confession is too soft and the Protestants made it way softer. I suppose I would agree. But there is one point of yours which I might question. And that is that a penance has to be completed before absolution. I don't think you really want to go there. I agree that penances are awfully soft, but the idea of a penance is not to deserve an absolution, but the separate reparations for the damage the sin caused. Being restored to community only after penance is complete does make sense, but withholding absolution until then does not.

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.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

Lutherans have always retained Confession and Absolution, as it is very clearly taught in Scripture: Jesus Christ gave the Keys to His Church and said to His apostles, "Whoever's sins you forgive are forgiven them". Which is why Lutherans both have corporate confession in the Penitential Rite, and also retain private confession to the pastor upon request.

The reason why many Protestants have done away with this hasn't anything to do with Scripture, but largely is a purely reactionary move: The false notion that anything Rome does must be wrong. That's not being biblical, that's just being reactionary. And in being reactionary, rather than being biblical, many Protestants progressively did away with more and more Christian teaching and practice. Doing that eventually leads to a totally Christ-less and grace-less religion. Which we have seen in these present times.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Daniel Peres]

The information about Lutherans is interesting, but you must be a different kind of Lutheran than I am accustomed to. During my failed attempt to become a Protestant, I attended a a Lutheran Church, but they did not speak like you. I was very disturbed by their beliefs that sexual immorality was just perfectly fine. I think they said they were Evangelical Lutherans. The only thing I did like about the church was that the pastor looked exactly like St. Martin de Porres of Peru. He was a nice man who was not very happy about how his church was becoming more and more accepting of sexual immorality. He did Baptize my son and it was nice service.

 

[bling]

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.

God is very willing and wanting to forgive our sins as they happen, but it is us who have to humbly accept that forgiveness as pure undeserved charity (the only way it is presented). After we realize we have been forgiven do we have this huge unbelievable Love (Godly type Love) since we learn from Luke 7 Jesus teaching us ...he that is forgiven much Loves much... so forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt results automatically in an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love).
Before obtaining this huge Love we cannot do anything right, so we cannot repent correctly (1 Cor. 13:1-3). Sin comes first than forgiveness, than acceptance, than Love and than repenting.
There is a lot more to it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The information about Lutherans is interesting, but you must be a different kind of Lutheran than I am accustomed to. During my failed attempt to become a Protestant, I attended a a Lutheran Church, but they did not speak like you. I was very disturbed by their beliefs that sexual immorality was just perfectly fine. I think they said they were Evangelical Lutherans. The only thing I did like about the church was that the pastor looked exactly like St. Martin de Porres of Peru. He was a nice man who was not very happy about how his church was becoming more and more accepting of sexual immorality. He did Baptize my son and it was nice service.

In the US there are a number of larger synods, such as the ELCA, LCMS, WELS, NALC, and a number of others. It sounds like you were in a more liberalish ELCA congregation; the ELCA is kind of a big tent in which most things are left to each congregation, so you'll find strongly confessional congregations and you'll find some pretty wonky ones. And everything in-between. I've been part of the ELCA for about a decade, but the congregations I've been part of have been confessional and what I'd describe as "ordinarily Lutheran", it'd probably be hard to tell the difference on a Sunday morning between them and a more conservative LCMS congregation.

I'd say then that your experience is different than mine on that basis. My road to Lutheranism was, in large part, because I desired something confessional and grounded. As my upbringing was a mixed bag that left me religiously and spiritually confused and left me spending most of my 20's wandering around. A period I call my "wilderness" period, not because I was without faith, but because I was without a spiritual home.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Daniel Peres]

God is very willing and wanting to forgive our sins as they happen, but it is us who have to humbly accept that forgiveness as pure undeserved charity (the only way it is presented). After we realize we have been forgiven do we have this huge unbelievable Love (Godly type Love) since we learn from Luke 7 Jesus teaching us ...he that is forgiven much Loves much... so forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt results automatically in an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love).
Before obtaining this huge Love we cannot do anything right, so we cannot repent correctly (1 Cor. 13:1-3). Sin comes first than forgiveness, than acceptance, than Love and than repenting.
There is a lot more to it.

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."

 

[ViaCrucis]

For some context, here is what the Lutheran Confessions have to say about Confession and Absolution:

"Of Confession they teach that Private Absolution ought to be retained in the churches, although in confession an enumeration of all sins is not necessary. For it is impossible according to the Psalm: Who can understand his errors? Ps. 19:12." - The Augsburg Confession, Article XI

"Confession in the churches is not abolished among us; for it is not usual to give the body of the Lord, except to them that have been previously examined and absolved. And the people are most carefully taught concerning faith in the absolution, about which formerly there was profound silence. Our people are taught that they should highly prize the absolution, as being the voice of God, and pronounced by God’s command. The power of the Keys is set forth in its beauty and they are reminded what great consolation it brings to anxious consciences, also, that God requires faith to believe such absolution as a voice sounding from heaven, and that such faith in Christ truly obtains and receives the forgiveness of sins. Aforetime satisfactions were immoderately extolled; of faith and the merit of Christ and the righteousness of faith no mention was made; wherefore, on this point, our churches are by no means to be blamed. For this even our adversaries must needs concede to us that the doctrine concerning repentance has been most diligently treated and laid open by our teachers." - Augsburg Confession, Article XXV, 1-6

"The keys are an office and power given by Christ to the Church for binding and loosing sin, not only the gross and well-known sins, but also the subtle, hidden, which are known only to God, as it is written in Ps. 19:13: Who can understand his errors? And in Rom. 7:25 St. Paul himself complains that with the flesh he serves the law of sin. For it is not in our power, but belongs to God alone, to judge which, how great, and how many the sins are, as it is written in Ps. 143:2: Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified. And Paul says, 1 Cor. 4:4: For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified." - Smalcald Articles, Article VII

"Since Absolution or the Power of the Keys is also an aid and consolation against sin and a bad conscience, ordained by Christ [Himself] in the Gospel, Confession or Absolution ought by no means to be abolished in the Church, especially on account of [tender and] timid consciences and on account of the untrained [and capricious] young people, in order that they may be examined, and instructed in the Christian doctrine.

But the enumeration of sins ought to be free to every one, as to what he wishes to enumerate or not to enumerate. For as long as we are in the flesh, we shall not lie when we say: “I am a poor man [I acknowledge that I am a miserable sinner], full of sin.” Rom. 7:23: I see another law in my members, etc. For since private absolution originates in the Office of the Keys, it should not be despised [neglected], but greatly and highly esteemed [of the greatest worth], as [also] all other offices of the Christian Church.

And in those things which concern the spoken, outward Word, we must firmly hold that God grants His Spirit or grace to no one, except through or with the preceding outward Word, in order that we may [thus] be protected against the enthusiasts, i.e., spirits who boast that they have the Spirit without and before the Word, and accordingly judge Scripture or the spoken Word, and explain and stretch it at their pleasure, as Muenzer did, and many still do at the present day, who wish to be acute judges between the Spirit and the letter, and yet know not what they say or declare." - Smallcald Articles, Article VIII, 1-3

Much more is written, but I think this is sufficient or provide the necessary context to understand how the Lutherans have not merely retained but speak the highest praise of the Sacrament of Confession and Absolution, not merely a comforting word of the priest, but the very word of Christ Jesus our God Himself, by the gift and office of the Keys that the Faithful be preserved and continue to hear the Voice of the Good Shepherd Himself, speaking over us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

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.

James 5:16 prescribes confession to one another, which grammatically is not the entire congregation.

 

[Daniel Peres]

James 5:16 prescribes confession to one another, which grammatically is not the entire congregation.

Grammar should not be disregarded entirely, but my argument is not based on grammar, it’s based on logic and historical evidence which also should not be ignored.

 

[Clare73]

Grammar should not be disregarded entirely, but my argument is not based on grammar, it’s based on logic and historical evidence which also should not be ignored.

Where did you find widespread practice of confession to the entire congregation?

Likewise, no practice overturns the meaning of Scriptural grammar.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Where did you find widespread practice of confession to the entire congregation?

Likewise, no practice overturns the meaning of Scriptural grammar.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Practice cannot overturn scripture, but it can help us understand scripture. For example, if the historical evidence shows that Christians always confessed before the congregation then then logic dictates that your personal interpretation allegedly based on grammar is wrong. Who knows better about the ancient practice of confession, a 21st century man, such as yourself, or the early Christians.

I’ll give you another example. Many pro-homosexual Christians like to point out that Jesus never specifically referred to homosexual activity, he only prohibited sexual immorality and that does not necessarily include homosexual acts. Their gramatical views are indeed accurate. However, historical evidence about first century Judaism, as well as Paul’s epistles prove that when Jesus prohibited sexual immorality, he also meant to include homosexual acts in his prohibition.

 

[ViaCrucis]

When I was very young our family attended a non-denominational church, a fairly large one (about three thousand members, which was huge considering we lived in a somewhat smallish town of only about 12-15,000 residents at the time). They held to a rather particular interpretation of what Jesus says in Matthew 18:15-17 concerning an offending brother in which someone charged with a particular sin was to first confess it before the board of elders, and then were required to go up front on Sunday morning to confess everything and every possible bit of dirt to the entire congregation. When one of the elders of the church was being unfaithful to his wife by having an affair with another woman in the church, he placed the blame on his wife and my mom, since they were good friends in the church choir. In other words, he accused his wife and my mom of being in a same-sex affair in order that he could remain in good standing as an elder, while also divorcing his wife to be with his mistress. The rest of the elders merely assumed what he said was true without actually looking into it, so my mom was brought before the board of elders, told to repent or else be forced to leave the church entirely (along with my dad, my brother, and myself, I was only eight years old and my brother about six). She refused, however, to confess to something she didn't do when she was told she was supposed to spend both Sunday services standing up front and confessing to something she never did--which, of course, resulted in my family being kicked out of the church.

As such, I have always been deeply wary of the idea that one is supposed to literally stand up and confess to every member of the congregation to face public humiliation. The point of confession isn't to be publically humiliated, which is all this church's practice served to do: bring public shame to someone for the purpose of control.

Which is precisely why I appreciate how things are done in the Lutheran churches: It's not about being shamed, it's about the promise of the Gospel of Jesus: That if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins; that through the Office of the Keys we are given Absolution, the absolute assurance that our sins are forgiven on account of Christ's perfect satisfaction by His death and resurrection. The word of Absolution is more than mere comfort (though it is a comfort), it is the solid declaration of God's grace to us, whosoever's sins are forgiven are truly, really, and most certainly forgiven them. We can have assurance in the word of God, we are forgiven.

A church practice that aims to shame, humiliate, and to shun rather than to heal, forgive, and to reconcile should rightly be called a false practice and abuse of the Church's highest office: The Keys themselves.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Daniel Peres]

When I was very young our family attended a non-denominational church, a fairly large one (about three thousand members, which was huge considering we lived in a somewhat smallish town of only about 12-15,000 residents at the time). They held to a rather particular interpretation of what Jesus says in Matthew 18:15-17 concerning an offending brother in which someone charged with a particular sin was to first confess it before the board of elders, and then were required to go up front on Sunday morning to confess everything and every possible bit of dirt to the entire congregation. When one of the elders of the church was being unfaithful to his wife by having an affair with another woman in the church, he placed the blame on his wife and my mom, since they were good friends in the church choir. In other words, he accused his wife and my mom of being in a same-sex affair in order that he could remain in good standing as an elder, while also divorcing his wife to be with his mistress. The rest of the elders merely assumed what he said was true without actually looking into it, so my mom was brought before the board of elders, told to repent or else be forced to leave the church entirely (along with my dad, my brother, and myself, I was only eight years old and my brother about six). She refused, however, to confess to something she didn't do when she was told she was supposed to spend both Sunday services standing up front and confessing to something she never did--which, of course, resulted in my family being kicked out of the church.

As such, I have always been deeply wary of the idea that one is supposed to literally stand up and confess to every member of the congregation to face public humiliation. The point of confession isn't to be publically humiliated, which is all this church's practice served to do: bring public shame to someone for the purpose of control.

Which is precisely why I appreciate how things are done in the Lutheran churches: It's not about being shamed, it's about the promise of the Gospel of Jesus: That if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins; that through the Office of the Keys we are given Absolution, the absolute assurance that our sins are forgiven on account of Christ's perfect satisfaction by His death and resurrection. The word of Absolution is more than mere comfort (though it is a comfort), it is the solid declaration of God's grace to us, whosoever's sins are forgiven are truly, really, and most certainly forgiven them. We can have assurance in the word of God, we are forgiven.

A church practice that aims to shame, humiliate, and to shun rather than to heal, forgive, and to reconcile should rightly be called a false practice and abuse of the Church's highest office: The Keys themselves.

-CryptoLutheran

That’s exactly why the Catholic Church put an end to public confessions, and I agree with the decision.

 

[Clare73]

Where did you find widespread practice of confession to the entire congregation?

Likewise, no practice overturns the meaning of Scriptural grammar.

Practice cannot overturn scripture, but it can help us understand scripture. For example, if the historical evidence shows that Christians always confessed before the congregation then then logic dictates that your personal interpretation allegedly based on grammar is wrong. Who knows better about the ancient practice of confession, a 21st century man, such as yourself, or the early Christians.

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

You did not answer my question.

I’ll give you another example. Many pro-homosexual Christians like to point out that Jesus never specifically referred to homosexual activity, he only prohibited sexual immorality and that does not necessarily include homosexual acts. Their gramatical views are indeed accurate. However, historical evidence about first century Judaism, as well as Paul’s epistles prove that when Jesus prohibited sexual immorality, he also meant to include homosexual acts in his prohibition.

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

 

[Tigger45]

General confession during a church service is openly admitting we each are sinful 'one to another' and collectively, after which the keys of the Kingdom of binding and loosening are administered biblically as the church always has.

 

[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.

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

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. 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?

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.