X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:16:56 CDT
Reply-To:     bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com
From:         Brad Kaiser <bradk%isdgsm@RTSG.MOT.COM>
Subject:      Re>Absolution

Tim King writes:

>> To attempt to paraphrase Brad and Leo -- and someone correct me if I'm
>> wrong...

>> (A) If a christian knows he must confess to a priest, he must do so.
>> (B) In the case that the above christian cannot confess to a priest, his
>> desire to do so counts as if he had actually done so.
>> (C) If, however, he does not know that he must confess, his sincere
>> confession before God counts as an authentic confession.

That's a pretty good paraphrase.

Tim goes on to ask:

>> How is the above sequence effectively different from the following sequence?
>> (C) In order to be right with God, one only needs to confess his sins to God.
>> (A) If, however, he feels he needs to talk to a priest about it, it is a
>> good thing and pleasant in God's eyes.
>> (B) If, although he feels he needs to talk with a priest, he cannot, he
>> should be encouraged within himself that this inability to talk with a
>> priest in no way will affect his salvation.

Big difference.  You've made confession, even for those who know it to
be Christ's command, an option.  It's not an option (according to my
beliefs, and the teachings of the Catholic Church, that is).

Also, there's a difference between "feeling a need to talk with a
priest" and knowing that we are commanded to confess.  One is simply a
matter of preference or inclination; the other, a matter of obedience.

>> Furthermore, if we can, without committing any heresy, take the emphasis off
>> of the act of confession to a priest, why can't the word "priest" in (A)
>> and (B) above be replaced with the words "qualified protestant minister"
>> (without, for now, defining the word "qualified")?

Well, Christ addressed the Apostles after His resurrection, saying:
"If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them
bound, they are held bound." [Jn 20:23].  I don't believe that He gave
that power to everyone, but only to the Apostles, who were empowered
to confer that power on other believers through the imposition of
hands in ordination. (cf 1 Tm 4:14, 2 Tm 1:6, 2 Tm 2:1-2)  Therefore,
only a validly ordained priest, ordained by a validly ordained bishop,
has this power.  We believe that a validly ordained bishop has
authority which comes to him from the Apostles (through a sequence of
valid episcopal ordinations).

Wolfgang Hutter writes:

>> So here is my question. How do you know that a RC 'truly believes God
>> wants him to confess his sins to a priest'? There are many RC's that I
>> know who doubt the virgin birth of Jesus, the transsubstantiation or
>> other doctrines of the RCC. So I would presume that there are indeed RC
>> Christians who don't believe it to be necessary to confess to a priest.
>> Or in Brad's words: which case covers the faithful RC Christian who
>> 'interiorly *does not know*'.

I have great difficulty imagining a "faithful RC Christian" who does
not know that confession is required for the forgiveness of serious
sin.  Things like the doctrines regarding Confession I've been
teaching, the Virgin Birth, and Transubstantiation are dogmatically
revealed.  A Catholic cannot simply choose not to believe them.

A Catholic who doesn't believe that Confession is commanded by Christ
for the forgiveness of serious sin, therefore, must fall into one of
the following categories:

   (1) One who honestly does not know, through no fault of their own,
       that the Church teaches this.  I can imagine such a person in a
       mission territory where people see a priest rarely if ever and
       have no other opportunity to learn the teachings of the faith.
       I cannot imagine such a person in a modern, literate society.

       In any case, such a person bears no guilt.

   (2) One who does not know the Church's teaching, but who is not
       entirely free of guilt -- one who is, shall we say, culpably
       ignorant.  Culpable, since he/she *could*, and *should*, learn
       what the Church teaches, but fails to do so through sloth or
       fear.  This imputes some guilt.

   (3) One who honestly disagrees with the Church's authority to teach
       in such matters, thereby committing the material sin of heresy
       (since the disagreement is an honest one), but remains in the
       Catholic Church, thereby committing the formal sin of
       hypocrisy.

       The heresy does not impute guilt (since the disagreement is
       honest), but the hypocrisy does.

   (4) One who agrees with the Church's authority to teach, but
       nevertheless rejects one or more dogmata.  Such a person is
       guilty of the formal sin of heresy; formal sin of any kind
       imputes guilt.

This is, of course, distinct from the case of one who recognizes that
Confession is required, but fails to confess out of sloth or
presumption.  That's just plain old fashioned sin.  I know, I've done
it.

In Christ's Love,

Brad Kaiser
(bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com)

  "Hatred destroys.  Only love creates."
            -- St. Maximilian Kolbe, shortly before his arrest and
               martyrdom at the hands of the Nazis.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU