The Sacraments

[JoeCatch]

You don't need Jesus for any of this so why bother with the Christian label? You can go to the self-help section of your local bookstore and read all about this. Christianity is not all about how everyone is fuzzy and happy but about how we are all poor miserable sinners who can do nothing save ourselves and Jesus did it all. If you want to learn about sharing you can watch Barney.

No time to respond to the rest at this time, but I'll get to it when I get a chance. Nice job cutting out everything that I wrote about the importance of Christ in everything that I said that being a Christian was all about. You really couldn't have been any more intentionally misrepresentative of my view here, even if you'd tried. Thanks for not calling me 'steve' this time, though.

 

[DaRev]

I can't help but find it a little bit amusing that there are some here at TCL who consitently throw around the "so you're not an inerrantist!" card as though it's some sort of "gotcha!" moment. I've gone on record here many, many, many times as rejecting inerrantism, and yet for some reason every single time I do, somebody jumps forward, seemingly thinking him/herself clever for having "outed" me. Truly, truly puzzling.

Yeah, it pretty much does explain precisely why I find so much conservative/confessional theology so dreadfully misguided or flat-out wrong. But, really, Rev, this isn't anything that any of us didn't already know.

I fail to understand how you can find something "dreadfully misguided or flat-out wrong" when you have absolutely no credible basis for your position. You have completely discounted the Scriptures, which leaves your position based upon your own personal beliefs which certainly have no basis in fact whatsoever. Confessional Lutheran theology is based upon the Scriptures, the inspired word of God. And even if they weren't inerrant, there is still a documented basis for confessional theology. Your "theology" has no basis except your own imagination.

I guess the only thing we can agree on here is that we base our theology on JC. But we don't agree on who JC is. To me, it's Jesus Christ. To you, it's JoeCatch.

 

[JoeCatch]

I fail to understand how you can find something "dreadfully misguided or flat-out wrong" when you have absolutely no credible basis for your position. You have completely discounted the Scriptures, which leaves your position based upon your own personal beliefs which certainly have no basis in fact whatsoever. Confessional Lutheran theology is based upon the Scriptures, the inspired word of God. And even if they weren't inerrant, there is still a documented basis for confessional theology. Your "theology" has no basis except your own imagination.

I guess the only thing we can agree on here is that we base our theology on JC. But we don't agree on who JC is. To me, it's Jesus Christ. To you, it's JoeCatch.

Having spent several years as a conservative, confessional Missouri Synod Lutheran, I'd say I've got an entirely credible basis for my position. Yes, at one point, my theology was every bit as conservative as anybody's at TCL; I'm well acquainted with the views of confessional Lutherans and their arguments for those views. At one point I found those views and arguments convincing; I no longer do. But I certainly have a keen awareness of precisely what it is that I'm rejecting, having spent a great deal of time immersed in it and soaking up every bit of knowledge about it that I could get my hands on.

I was unaware that inerrantism and one's own imagination exhausted the options for what one could use as the basis for one's theology. Upon reflection, though, it occurs to me that the reason I was unaware of that is that it's false. Those of us who reject inerrantism do not "completely discount" the scriptures; that's every bit as much of a blatant lie coming from your keyboard as it was from wildboar's. It simply isn't the case that anyone who rejects your particular view of the bible is thereby discounting the entire bible itself. My view of the bible is that it testifies to the encounters that people had with Jesus, and to their experience of his words and deeds through which they became convinced that their encounter with him was an encounter with God Incarnate. I believe that in the narrative of scripture we encounter that same God Incarnate and are likewise shown who God is (and, by extension, who we are). I spell all of this out, not because I expect that any of it will be the least bit convincing to you, but so that others reading this thread will see plainly that there is no honesty whatsoever in the frequently repeated conservative lie that non-inerrantists and historical-critical readers "discount the Scriptures."

My theology begins with that encounter with Jesus to which the scriptures testify. I don't need for those scriptures to be inerrant or verbally inspired to encounter Jesus in them; the kerygma confronts us in the relating of the experiences of those who had the original encounters with him. True enough, there is more room in my theology to be informed by reason, experience, science and history than there is in yours, but to claim that it is based on nothing more than my imagination (and, even worse, that I am guilty of self-worship, as you've implied) is yet another lie. Again, I don't expect you to find this convincing, but I'm putting out there so that it will be clear to others who drop into this thread that there is nothing but a blatant disregard for truth in your charges that there is no place for Jesus in my theology and that he does not play an absolutely central role in it. It's truly a shame that there are so many here at TCL who demonstrate so regularly that they are incapable of defending their own views without resorting to blatantly misrepresenting the views of others. A shame indeed, but also an excellent reminder of why I long ago stopped finding conservative Lutheran theology the least bit credible.

 

[wildboar]

No time to respond to the rest at this time, but I'll get to it when I get a chance. Nice job cutting out everything that I wrote about the importance of Christ in everything that I said that being a Christian was all about. You really couldn't have been any more intentionally misrepresentative of my view here, even if you'd tried. Thanks for not calling me 'steve' this time, though.

This is all you wrote about Jesus:

Now, of course, that's a pretty different picture of what it means to be a Christian. It doesn't really seem to have much at all to do with the conception of Christianity as being primarily about individualistic, otherworldly, supernatural, personal salvation. But it definitely has a lot to do with what Jesus's own movement and ministry were actually about. It has to do with all of the above being an expression of the true nature of God's own self, and Jesus as the unique person who fully reveals to us that divine nature. When people encounter Jesus, that encounter fully reveals to us both what God is and who we were. In him, the implicit unity of God and humanity is made explicit through the concrete, historical event of the Incarnation, and that real historical event of the Incarnation has reconciled, once for all, God and the world. Now, if we have all of that, but no miracles (or any of the theodicy problems that come with them), that's OK by me.

The picture of what it means to be a Christian according to you was contained in the bullet points which had nothing about Jesus whatsoever. The paragraph here just talks about "encountering" Jesus in some subjective way and from the bullet points it doesn't appear that the jesus encountered is the one of Scripture or of historic Christianity. If we have an incarnation without a miracle of any kind then what is the point? Why not be a Buddhist?

 

[Tangible]

Just wondering Joe, (and I'm not trying to put you down - I simply don't understand your position): How can you have a supernatural God that transcends creation, who enters creation to save us, without having any miracles?

Aren't the Incarnation and the Resurrection miraculous? Aren't the Sacraments miraculous? I don't get how anyone could be a Christian, let alone a Lutheran, while simultaneously denying the miraculous works of God.

 

[JoeCatch]

The picture of what it means to be a Christian according to you was contained in the bullet points which had nothing about Jesus whatsoever. The paragraph here just talks about "encountering" Jesus in some subjective way and from the bullet points it doesn't appear that the jesus encountered is the one of Scripture or of historic Christianity. If we have an incarnation without a miracle of any kind then what is the point? Why not be a Buddhist?

No, everything I wrote about Jesus is absolutely integral to what it means, on my view, to be a Christian. Sorry there was a misunderstanding about that. And certainly the Jesus whom we encounter is the Jesus of history. The entire point of the Incarnation is that God became flesh in a particular, historical and actual person.

The encounter with Jesus was, for those who encountered him in the flesh, an encounter with the sort of reality that I described in the bullet points. All of that stuff in the bullet point list--and, really, all of that stuff is about justice--is what people encountered when they encountered Jesus. All of that justice stuff is what Jesus revealed God to be, and those who encountered Jesus recognized that God was revealed to them in him--personally.

You mention that I'm claiming that the encounter that people had with Jesus (and still do have with him) is subjective, and I'd say that of course that's true. That's the point. Jesus was--and is--a person. The encounter with him is a personal one. We are subjects encountering another subject, not an object. We come to know Jesus as a person, as a subject, not as an object. Note, though, that when I describe our encounter with (and knowledge of) Jesus as subjective, I don't thereby mean to introduce any sort of relativism into the picture. The Jesus we encounter--in Word and Sacrament, in the church, in the kerygma--is the same Jesus who was encountered in the flesh during his life on earth. (There is, after all, only one Jesus.) When I emphasize the subjective nature of the encounter, I only mean that we don't encounter Jesus as an object--like a text or a butterfly pinned to a corkboard--that we can come to know merely by learning all of the facts about it. The subjectivity of our encounter with Jesus means that coming to know him means more than merely learning facts about him.

 

[JoeCatch]

Just wondering Joe, (and I'm not trying to put you down - I simply don't understand your position): How can you have a supernatural God that transcends creation, who enters creation to save us, without having any miracles?

Aren't the Incarnation and the Resurrection miraculous? Aren't the Sacraments miraculous? I don't get how anyone could be a Christian, let alone a Lutheran, while simultaneously denying the miraculous works of God.

I don't see why we even need the natural/supernatural distinction; it's just not clear to me that it really adds anything to the picture or brings in any extra explanatory power.

I don't need the natural/supernatural distinction in my theology because my view of God is panentheistic. That is, God is immanent in the universe, but not identical to it (i.e., not a pantheistic view). This panentheistic view affirms that God is also transcendent, because God is not identical or reducible to the universe. So, for me, the Incarnation (and the sacraments along with it) isn't a supernatural or miraculous event; it doesn't defy and laws of nature. It simply makes explicit a reality that is implicit everywhere throughout the God-embodying universe. Because, for me, the Incarnation is a revelation of the underlying nature of reality, there needn't be anything supernatural about it.

I'm completely open to describing all of the above as "miraculous" in the following sense: The Incarnation and sacraments are miraculous in that they reveal to us that the fundamental nature of reality is not simply material or physical. It's not a "suspension of the laws of nature" conception of what a miracle is, but it works for me.

 

[JoeCatch]

OK, wildboar, I owe you a few responses, so here we go:

So did Jesus corrupt it? Because I don't remember Jesus inviting the pagans or even the other Jews. I distinctly remember 12 other people being there. Or is the Gospel account corrupted as well? In the "real" Lord's Supper did he dress as a clown and hold it on Mars Hill?

No, Jesus didn't corrupt the meal that he himself instituted. I'm placing the Lord's Supper/passover meal within the broader context of Jesus's entire ministry, in which open commensality was absolutely integral.

Where do you get this stuff from? Have you read the patristic writings on the Eucharist and the early Eucharistic liturgies? Nothing of what you said makes any sense based on my reading of the documents, or have these been corrupted as well?

Can you fill me in on which documents you're actually referring to here? Certainly if you're reading the patristic writings of the 1st through 3rd centuries, you must have noticed that they evince a great deal of diversity on all sorts of issues.

Regarding the Lord's Supper in particular, one major change was the transition from it being a full, actual meal to being the liturgical ritual that we know today. I call that a corruption--strong language, to be sure--because there really is a huge difference between the two! The big problem is that it's difficult for the liturgical ritual to really capture everything that Jesus himself intended for the meal to be about.

What "Gospels" are you reading?

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. See comments above re: placing the Lord's Supper in the broader context of Jesus's entire ministry rather than in isolation.

Most modern linguistic theorists would argue that a person cannot fully understand a text without being a part of the community from which the text arose. I am suspicious to say the least of someone who appears to be critical of the text of giving me the correct interpretation. I've often read interpretations of confessional documents from various traditions that are far less open in their criticism than you are being but are still very critical and then try to bend some portion of the text to suit their own fancy which seems to be pretty clearly what you are doing.

I agree that it's difficult to understand a text fully without being immersed in the worldview out of which it was produced. To understand a text fully, in that case, may well be impossible. But we can understand such texts adequately, even if not fully. In order to do so, we should learn as much as we can about the worldview out of which the text was produced. We should be mindful of historical and cultural context, the specific situation(s) that prompted the writing of the text, the literary conventions it employs and the history of the text itself. In short, we should employ historical-critical tools. I'm not clear, though, what you mean when you say that I'm open in my criticism of the text (I'm presuming that you're talking about the 1 Corinthians text, though you don't actually specify) or which of my views you claim I'm deriving from a bending of the text to suit my own fancy. You claim that that's "pretty clearly what [I am] doing," so some actual examples would be helpful here.

You don't need Jesus for any of this so why bother with the Christian label? You can go to the self-help section of your local bookstore and read all about this. Christianity is not all about how everyone is fuzzy and happy but about how we are all poor miserable sinners who can do nothing save ourselves and Jesus did it all. If you want to learn about sharing you can watch Barney.

Yes, Jesus is of primal importance for all of what I've expressed. If you're still laboring under the impression that my theology is "all about how everyone is fuzzy and happy" as Barney or a self-help book would affirm, then you're still flatly misrepresenting me. Last I checked, neither Barney nor self-help books fully reveal to us who God is, who we are, or what the fundamental reality of the universe is. Jesus does that; they don't.

 

[DaRev]

Regarding the Lord's Supper in particular, one major change was the transition from it being a full, actual meal to being the liturgical ritual that we know today. I call that a corruption--strong language, to be sure--because there really is a huge difference between the two! The big problem is that it's difficult for the liturgical ritual to really capture everything that Jesus himself intended for the meal to be about.

Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 11? That is the very issue that Paul is addressing. The Corinthians had turned the Lord's Supper into a party. He was admonishing them and reminding them of what the Lord's Supper entails and the importance of it.

Or are you saying that it was St. Paul who "corrupted" the Lord's Supper?

 

[JoeCatch]

Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 11?

Yes, many times.

That is the very issue that Paul is addressing. The Corinthians had turned the Lord's Supper into a party.

No, turning the Lord's Supper into a party wasn't quite the issue he was addressing. Please refer back to my first reply to CantateDomino, wherein I discuss precisely what the issue was at Corinth (viz., divisions between the rich and the poor among the Corinthians). You could, of course, actually respond substantively to that exegesis, rather than incredulously and intellectually dishonestly asking whether I've actually read the text even after I've offered a detailed exegesis of it in this very thread.

He was admonishing them and reminding them of what the Lord's Supper entails and the importance of it.

That's true. Specifically, what he was reminding them of was that the Lord's Supper entails no divisions whereby some are better fed than others. This equality at the table was tremendously important to Paul because it was such an important feature of Jesus's ministry. His point was not that the practice of having a full meal at the Lord's Supper was improper in itself, but that the way the Corinthians were doing it was improper because of the inequality that they had introduced into it.

Or are you saying that it was St. Paul who "corrupted" the Lord's Supper?

No, that's not a claim that I've made anywhere in this thread. Can you point me to anything that I've written that would lend itself to being reasonably interpreted as such? My point, which I've made absolutely plain, is that the liturgical ritual of the Eucharist as we know it today does not capture everything that Jesus intended for his supper to be about: openness, equality, ensuring that everybody gets enough, caring for everybody in the community. That's not to say that there's no value at all in communion as we have it today (I think there certainly is something valuable in it), but only that some valuable aspects of the meal were not retained in the transition from actual meal to liturgical ritual, and that this was an unfortunate loss. But Paul, for sure, was writing to the Corinthians about a Lord's Supper that was still a full meal at that point in the early 50s; the transition to liturgical ritual was later than Paul, probably around the end of the 1st century or so, a few decades after his death. He had no hand in the transformation of the Lord's Supper of which I've written.

 

[DaRev]

My point, which I've made absolutely plain, is that the liturgical ritual of the Eucharist as we know it today does not capture everything that Jesus intended for his supper to be about: openness, equality, ensuring that everybody gets enough, caring for everybody in the community.

I'd be interested in knowing where you get this from. I don't see any of this in any of the accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper.

 

[JoeCatch]

I'd be interested in knowing where you get this from. I don't see any of this in any of the accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper.

Please see my response from earlier today to wildboar. I'm placing the accounts of the Lord's Supper within the broader context of Jesus's entire ministry, rather than viewing it in isolation. My contention is that there's no disconnect between the Lord's Supper and the rest of the ministry of Jesus; this, to me, just seems obvious. So, if his ministry was about things like giving a place to "nobodies," ensuring that the poor were fed, bringing people into a community where everybody was cared for, and welcoming everybody to the table, then those things had a lot to do with what he intended the Lord's Supper to be. So, when we see Paul writing to the Corinthians about their practice of the Lord's Supper, and his criticism seems to be focused on these same issues that permeate Jesus's ministry, that seems to me to be confirmation that those matters really were the intent of the meal when Jesus instituted it; that's precisely why Paul makes such a big deal of it when the Corinthians' practices ignore those principles when they come together for the Lord's Supper. But we have to look at the entire ministry of Jesus; we can't understand the Lord's Supper properly by viewing the accounts of its institution in isolation from everything else that he said and did.

 

[Tangible]

I think you may have a point when it comes to a broader definition of communion - koinonia - fellowship. However, within the narrow focus of the Lord's Supper, I believe the traditional understanding is valid.

 

[DaRev]

Please see my response from earlier today to wildboar. I'm placing the accounts of the Lord's Supper within the broader context of Jesus's entire ministry, rather than viewing it in isolation. My contention is that there's no disconnect between the Lord's Supper and the rest of the ministry of Jesus; this, to me, just seems obvious. So, if his ministry was about things like giving a place to "nobodies," ensuring that the poor were fed, bringing people into a community where everybody was cared for, and welcoming everybody to the table, then those things had a lot to do with what he intended the Lord's Supper to be. So, when we see Paul writing to the Corinthians about their practice of the Lord's Supper, and his criticism seems to be focused on these same issues that permeate Jesus's ministry, that seems to me to be confirmation that those matters really were the intent of the meal when Jesus instituted it; that's precisely why Paul makes such a big deal of it when the Corinthians' practices ignore those principles when they come together for the Lord's Supper. But we have to look at the entire ministry of Jesus; we can't understand the Lord's Supper properly by viewing the accounts of its institution in isolation from everything else that he said and did.

But was He truly inclusive of everybody? What about the turning of the tables in the Temple courts, and all that talk about the Pharisees being hypocrites? If you are going to interpret the Biblical accounts of the Lord's Supper in the greater context, then it must be in the context of Scripture as a whole. And there are numerous places in Scripture where God teaches us to avoid the wicked and have nothing to do with false teachers, etc.

The fact is that Paul's teaching regarding the Lord's Supper is precisely to distinguish it from a feast or banquet, and to ensure that those who receive it are in agreement and are worthy to do so, lest they sin and bring judgement upon themselves.

 

[JoeCatch]

But was He truly inclusive of everybody?

Yes. Whom did he ever turn away? Only two people come to mind: the rich, young ruler and the Syrophoenecian woman. The young ruler wasn't turned away, though; he departed from Jesus of his own accord because he found Jesus's teaching too difficult. And the Syrophoenician woman appealed to Jesus and got him to relent and heal her daughter after he'd originally rejected her request.

What about the turning of the tables in the Temple courts, and all that talk about the Pharisees being hypocrites?

Yes, he turned over the tables in the temple courts in order to publicly rebuke the money changers for attempting to broker access to God, perhaps particularly in a manner that was exploitative of the poor. Those of us who follow Christ, likewise, should publicly rebuke those who would broker access to God and instead declare to all the reality of the unbrokered empire of God.

And I'll just go ahead and set you up for another "gotcha!" declaration by pointing out that the words attributed to Jesus against the Pharisees are far more reflective of the issues faced by the early Christian movement rather than by Jesus himself. Most are likely to be inauthentic. This is especially true of the anti-Pharisaical content of Matthew's gospel, which contains by far the most such sayings.

If you are going to interpret the Biblical accounts of the Lord's Supper in the greater context, then it must be in the context of Scripture as a whole. And there are numerous places in Scripture where God teaches us to avoid the wicked and have nothing to do with false teachers, etc.

Two "gotcha!" moments in one post here for you--we can't just take the words of scripture at face value and say "God teaches" this or that. That's not the nature of scriptural authority. Jesus himself must always be the norm of the scriptures, and they depict him going to the wicked, the sinners, the unclean, the shameless. They are transformed by their encounter with him; he redefines them and gives them a new identity so that they no longer need to be wicked, sinners, unclean, shameless. Jesus's outreach to these people was not dependent on any preconditions; neither should we who are the church today put preconditions on such people in our own communities and bring them an encounter with Jesus only if they meet some preconditions.

The fact is that Paul's teaching regarding the Lord's Supper is precisely to distinguish it from a feast or banquet, and to ensure that those who receive it are in agreement and are worthy to do so, lest they sin and bring judgement upon themselves.

There's nothing in Paul's instructions to the Corinthians that indicates that doctrinal disagreement had anything to do with the judgment that he warned them about with regard to their practices concerning the Lord's Supper. I know that it frequently gets read that way because that's the concern of the people doing the reading, but that issue just doesn't seem to actually be there in the text itself. Nowhere does he distinguish it from an actual meal, because he had absolutely no issue with it being an actual meal. When he says he has a problem with feasting, he's referring specifically to the practice of the wealthy among the Corinthians, who feasted while others went hungry. Jesus fed people abundantly and he instituted the Lord's Supper at the table of an actual meal (not during a liturgical ritual) within the context of that broader ministry of feeding people abundantly. Paul has no problem with the Lord's Supper being a feast; he understands that that's exactly what it's supposed to be. His problem is that, at Corinth, it had become a feast only for some rather than a feast for all.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

Re-opening my thread now that side conversations have ended as it was once explained to me, in regards to confessional Lutheranism as part of the LCMS you could confess your sins privately to a Priest if you would like, or you could have a corporate confession where the Priest absolves the whole congregation. I was wondering if this Corprate confession was an add in? or was it actually a supported method of Luthers? I read in the Small Catechism Luther mentions private confession, but not corprate confession, any insight guys?

 

[Tangible]

It really is interesting that private confession has fallen out of use to the extent that it has. Clearly in the SC Luther envisions private confession to be a regular activity in the Christian life. I would certainly use it more if it were available to me and I think it would be highly beneficial to me.

Corporate confession has always been a part of the Liturgy.

V. Confession
How Christians should be taught to confess.

What is Confession?

Confession embraces two parts: the one is, that we confess our sins; the other, that we receive absolution, or forgiveness, from the confessor, as from God Himself, and in no wise doubt, but firmly believe, that our sins are thereby forgiven before God in heaven.

What sins should we confess?
Before God we should plead guilty of all sins, even of those which we do not know, as we do in the Lord's Prayer. But before the confessor we should confess those sins alone which we know and feel in our hearts.

Which are these?
Here consider your station according to the Ten Commandments, whether you are a father, mother, son, daughter, master, mistress, a man-servant or maid-servant; whether you have been disobedient, unfaithful, slothful; whether you have grieved any one by words or deeds; whether you have stolen, neglected, or wasted aught, or done other injury.

Pray, Propose to Me a Brief Form of Confession.
Answer.
You should speak to the confessor thus: Reverend and dear sir, I beseech you to hear my confession, and to pronounce forgiveness to me for God's sake.
Proceed!
I, a poor sinner, confess myself before God guilty of all sins; especially I confess before you that I am a man-servant, a maidservant, etc. But, alas, I serve my master unfaithfully; for in this and in that I have not done what they commanded me; I have provoked them, and caused them to curse, have been negligent [in many things] and permitted damage to be done; have also been immodest in words and deeds, have quarreled with my equals, have grumbled and sworn at my mistress, etc. For all this I am sorry, and pray for grace; I want to do better.
A master or mistress may say thus:
In particular I confess before you that I have not faithfully trained my children, domestics, and wife [family] for God's glory. I have cursed, set a bad example by rude words and deeds, have done my neighbor harm and spoken evil of him, have overcharged and given false ware and short measure.
And whatever else he has done against God's command and his station, etc.
But if any one does not find himself burdened with such or greater sins, he should not trouble himself or search for or invent other sins, and thereby make confession a torture, but mention one or two that he knows. Thus: In particular I confess that I once cursed; again, I once used improper words, I have once neglected this or that, etc. Let this suffice.
But if you know of none at all (which, however is scarcely possible), then mention none in particular, but receive the forgiveness upon your general confession which you make before God to the confessor.
Then shall the confessor say:
God be merciful to thee and strengthen thy faith! Amen.
Furthermore:
Dost thou believe that my forgiveness is God's forgiveness?
Answer.
Yes, dear sir.
Then let him say:
As thou believest, so be it done unto thee. And by the command of our Lord Jesus Christ I forgive thee thy sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Depart in peace.

But those who have great burdens upon their consciences, or are distressed and tempted, the confessor will know how to comfort and to encourage to faith with more passages of Scripture. This is to be merely a general form of confession for the unlearned.​

 

[filosofer]

One challenge of the private confession (with the pastor) is the sheer magnitude. Suppose that there are 300 communicants in the congregation, each taking 5 minutes. That’s 1,500 minutes or 25 hours. But what is five minutes with each member? How much spiritual care can be done? When I provide spiritual care (which sometimes includes confession and absolution), it often takes 30 minutes or more before the person is ready to address that.

So with weekly communion, with no break, it would take on average four days, assuming we allow the pastor bathroom breaks and eating, at least occasionally; of course, a faithful pastor should spend 20 hours preparing each sermon. So we are at 50 hours, with no visitation, no hospital visits, etc.

So, while private confession is very beneficial for the spiritual health of the individual and the congregation, it would be a little overwhelming for the pastor. I can speak from experience, more than 3-4 visits per day can be very draining, emotionally, physically, mentally, but most importantly spiritually. It takes a lot out of the person. Been there, done that, not healthy when trying to cram in more activity like that.

 

[Tangible]

Just out of curiosity, how do the Catholics manage it?

 

[filosofer]

Just out of curiosity, how do the Catholics manage it?

Good question. To which I will add a few more. How many of RCC go to weekly confession? How many priests are assigned to each parish? What other expectations do they have?

Of course, I have a wife, and once upon a time, kids at home.