Posted on 09/01/2015 7:08:42 AM PDT by Graybeard58
Yes. We call that "moral assurance". It's a logical deduction from the mercy of God. But it is not direct knowledge of forgiveness, which can only come from God Himself. Forgiveness is personal. It really has to be communicated from the offended party to the offender.
My problem with reconciling this act of confession... is that forgiveness can be withheld... this equates man to God in divining one's heart... which only God can do.
Ok, fair enough. So what do you suppose Christ means in John 20 when he says to the Apostles that "whose sins you retain, are retained"?
And note that right before Our Lord says that to them, He breathes on them, and says "receive the Holy Spirit". Doesn't the presence of the Spirit supply what is lacking in the brains and hearts of men doing the confessing?
Why don’t we just get right down to it: The Pope sets aside the Bible. Why be bothered with such a pesky book anyway?
You are welcome. God bless you as well.
I have given this clarification to catholics and Mormons, before, and they would not accept it either, so I expect you too will reject the simple TRUTH in order to continue believing the layers of lies that are at the heart of the religion of catholiciism.
First, sacramental absolution from sin is not to be seen as something "instead of," or a "substitute for," forgiveness from God. Everyone who sins must, as soon as they are aware, repent of it and go to God in prayer for forgiveness. This is essential, and nothing can replace it.
The importance of sacramental Confession is that it is an outward sign, instituted by Christ to give grace.
An example of how God uses outward signs might be the historic OT incident where the Syrian general Naaman, on the advice of his wife's little child servant (!) goes to Elisha to be healed of his leprosy. God could have done it instantly, without Elisha. And Elisha--- by the power of God --- could have done it instantly as well, without any further action on Naaman's part. But instead, Elisha tells him he must dip himself seven times in the Jordan River.
At first, Naaman is contemptuous of this requirement, saying "Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel?" But finally he accedes, trudges down to that inferior watercourse called the Jordan in the sight of all his fighting men, dips himself, and is freed of his leprosy.
What was the point?
The point is that God, through Naaman's wife's little Jewish servant girl, and through Elisha, had prescribed for Naaman the remedy he needed. He had to go, not to the King of Israel, but to this bushy-whiskered old coot in Samaria, and follow his words and immerse himself in this muddy runnel the Jordan, and adopt a little humility, a little docility toward the Lord and the man whom the Lord appointed. Only then would he be inwardly disposed to accept the miracle of healing in the right spirit.
Confession is like that. It inclines the soul toward truth (having to say out loud, audibly, just exactly what you did), toward docility before the Lord, who said to confess to other people (James 5:16), and toward full moral realism, recognizing that by sin we have offended and injured the whole Church, the Body of Christ of which we are members.
(I know, you said "concise" and here I am sermonizing on and on. But forgive me, I thought this needed some background. And though I am a female, I am a sermonizer, born to the breed! :o)
Anyhow, you asked:
"Must you go to a priest to ask for forgiveness[?]"
IN the case of mortal sin, yes. You must repent before the Lord right away through prayer and personal supplication, AND you must seek sacramental Confession at the very earliest opportunity. (This is not the case with venial sins, e.g. taking those paper clips from office supply.)
"...and can he withhold it?"
He could, but only when there is a manifest, objective reason to withhold.
"If he can withhold it, does that not make him equal to God in discerning a man's heart?"
No, because it can't be based on some presumed mystical insight into the penitent's heart. There must be a manifest (openly displayed) reason. Examples would be:
(I myself, personally, have never heard of a priest refusing absolution, but those are some of the situations where that would happen.)
The priest would have to make it clear to the penitent: "My brother, this is not a valid Confession,. Please come back as soon as you're sober." Or words to that effect.
P.S. to Arthur McGowan: is this pretty much correct?
The rest of the world and also the SSPX.
Many times when someone is executed for some especially heinous crime, I read the comments and almost always someone states “may he burn in hell” or some such similar statement.
Wishing or hoping that someone goes to hell is far from Christianity. The criminals earthly death is sufficient punishment in my opinion, eternal damnation is an entirely different matter.
I hope and pray that condemned criminals come to experience the forgiveness of Jesus before they die. That forgiveness is the only forgiveness that matters in the long run.
The idolatry in “Catholic Europe” is no different than “Atheistic Europe”. It’s amazing to watch catholics from wherever bowing down to, lighting candles to, praying to idols.. Stunning. Shocking. Breathtaking.
I’ve been there, I’ve seen it.
There’s a Catholic church in Austria that actually parades an adorned skeleton of a child that was supposedly killed by jews for her blood for a jewish ritual..
The idolatry of Catholic South America is equally stunning.
I’m sorry if my Christianity offends your Catholicism.
So says the Bible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.