Talk:Sacrament of Penance

message: I added a couple of footnotes to validity.  As to frequency, I deleted the NPOV comment about whether or not people do/don't go frequently enough and whether or not it is ignored.  The problem is not only does the Church not address this by saying "YOU" need to go to confession, but it misrepresents the doctrine.  The requirement is to go to communion once per year -- confession is only required if during that last year a person committed a mortal sin.  Further, the doctrine would call for them to go sooner rather than later.DaveTroy 17:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As to required frequency, the Church acutally does require confession once a year. See CCC 2042 or the second precept of the Church. --Entoaggie09 03:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only applies to Roman Catholics though. Eastern Catholics aren't bound by that. InfernoXV 04:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So something to that effect could be added as long as it specifies that it is used by the Latin rite, correct? --Entoaggie09 05:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would find that eminently acceptable. InfernoXV 06:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Entoaggie, remember that the 2nd Precept is also presuming a mortal sin.  The purpose of the sacrament was (is) to allow communion, the more important act of union with the Church, which the Sacrament of Penance heals.  Therefore if there is no mortal sin, there is no objective "need" to go to Penance prior to receiving sacramental communion.DaveTroy 15:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: CCC 2042, to which Entoaggie09 refers, has a footnote referencing the Code of Canon Law.  Canon 989 reads: "After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year."  Canon 988.2 reads: "It is recommended to the Christian faithful that they also confess venial sins."  (The emphasis is mine.) --Faylei 19:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know as an Eastern Catholic, we are bound to confess - my priest recommended that the sin should not reach its first anniversary (i.e. not let a year pass after the sin)Tourskin (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be odd if Wikipedia implied that Roman Catholics regularly attend confession when the reality is that the practice has very largely disappeared compared to its universal practice up to the 60's.  I have therefore added referenced information on this. Haldraper (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity and frequency 

message: It seems to me to be a pretty glaring omission that an article on the sacrament of penance doesn't mention the actual penance (that is, the penance the priest gives the penitent at the end of the sacrament).  And I don't think the section on mortal sin belongs in the article- there's already an article on mortal sin.  If people want to know more about it, they can click on the link to the mortal sin article.Wldcat (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasis of the article

message: It seems to me that this section should discuss only the form of the sacrament- (something like "The penitent makes the sign of the cross and says 'Bless me father for I have sinned...'"), describing the act of confessing, the giving of the penance, the act of contrition, and absolution, etc.  I think the other material in the section should go somewhere else.  For example, the most of the first paragraph, especially the scriptural proof of the sacrament, should go in the overview section.  It doesn't have much to do with the form of the sacrament.Wldcat (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Form of the sacrament" section

message: I was raised Catholic, and went to confession numerous times as a youth. Every reconciliation included a task of penance to perform (aka "doing penance"), usually to recite a number of prayers (e.g. "four Hail Marys and two Our Fathers"), and sometimes other tasks (e.g. writing your sins on a piece of paper, then tearing it up as a sign of renewal; or agreeing to make amends with or apologize to whoever you transgressed, etc.), usually to agree to perform after you leave the booth (gotta keep the line moving :) ). 
Anyway, I bring this up because I don't see it mentioned; I don't know how common or official it is. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's something that should be put into the article! The Sacrament consists of some essential parts. In Germany, we remember them as the four (or five) B's: Besinnen (searching one's conscience for sins committed), bereuen (regretting them, having contrition or at least attrition), beichten (confessing them), büßen (doing penance) [and bessern: improving oneself; but that's, though necessary in itself, not essential to the Sacrament as such but as an aim]. Your four Hail Marys and two Our Fathers form the "penance" or, better, satisfaction (Genugtuung to who's interested). --84.154.81.1 (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Doing penance" 

message: Neither article says how this practice originated. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: The first 2 paragraphs contain a lot of 'facts' without a single reference...? Ride the Hurricane (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seal of confession 

message: There are at least three forms of the Rite of Reconciliation, interesting that this is not mentioned anywhere. Unless I missed it, or unless reconciliation is not the Sacrament of Penance (Catholic Church)?
  I    Rite for indiv. penitents
  II   Rite for several penitents with indiv. confession + absolution
  III  Rite for several penitents with general confession + absolution
These were described by Pope Paul VI. I will include it soon if no comments GerixAu  (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The full name appears to be "Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation." I say "appears" because even the Vatican uses the full name in the title of the subsection and then says only "penance" in the explanation. Student7 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Good to see someone is reading this page GerixAu  (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  rites of confession 

message: Kxmccallum (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that what is referred to by the "factual inaccuracy is disputed" tag? I am going to swap the tag to an NPOV one. Belegdal (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Fixes 

message: I added a paragraph which simply defines what exactly the Sacrament of Penance is and how it is ulitized through Confession that I hope all will understand.
I went to Catholic school and found the article, though well done, difficult to understand so I thought the simple paragraph would satisfy the template request. Mugginsx (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Purgatory is not taught to adults as a place (the Protestants are correct).  Please see 1031 which describes the process of purification. Perhaps too deep for children. Student7 (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The teachings are the same for children and adults.  Anyone who is a Roman Catholic knows that. Mugginsx (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  explaining pr the Template 

message: The lede has the following sentence: "Since the Reformation there has been long-running disagreement between the Catholic Church and Protestantism over this sacrament, including the church's authority to absolve sins." As far as I can tell, this disagreement is not elaborated on elsewhere in the article, or in the "parent" article Confession (religion). This seems like an important point that merits at least a section (if not a whole article). (In fact, I came to this article mainly looking for information about that issue.) Maybe this discussion does exist in another article somewhere, but it wasn't easy for me to find since it's not linked. In addition to seeming like a big hole in the present article, it's also a problem with the guidelines at WP:LEDE, which stipulate that facts mentioned in the intro section should be elaborated on within the article. 
I know next to nothing on this topic, so I'm afraid I cannot help much. I just wanted to bring it up to whoever is active at this page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. I've moved the "summary" to its own section and requested development. Once that happens, it can be "summarized" in the lead. The Orthodox position is much the same as Catholic. And maybe Episcopal/Anglican. Student7 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing discussion of disagreement over sacrament? 

message: This:  was  and removed.
A person is forbidden to receive the sacraments if they are excommunicated (CIC 1331 §1 n2, CCC 1463). If the priest knows this is the case then he is bound by canon law to deny the sacraments to the excommunicated person. Unless the excommunicated person is in danger of death (CIC 976, CCC 1463).
If excommunication is not the case, "[p]riests must encourage the faithful to come to the sacrament [...] and must make themselves available to celebrate this sacrament each time Christians reasonably ask for it" (CCC 1464). And, it is a fundamental right that "[e]very member of the Christian faithful is free to confess sins to a legitimately approved confessor of his or her choice" (CIC 991). "If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred" (CIC 980) – that is explictly something that happens during the sacrament. And the penitent obtains absolution when he or she is repentant and "intend[s] to reform themselves" (CIC 959). But, the penitent "must be disposed in such a way that, reject[s] sins committed and ha[s] a purpose of amendment"(CIC 987) and the confessor "is to adhere faithfully to the doctrine of the magisterium and the norms issued by competent authority" (CIC 978 §2).
An example of a norm issued by a competent authority is a 1997 Pontifical council for the family vademecum which states that "relapse into sins [... is not] a motive for denying absolution; absolution cannot be imparted, [...] in the absence of sufficient repentance or of the resolution not to fall again into sin" (3.5). It also states that the sacrament requires that the penitent has "sincere sorrow, a formally complete accusation of mortal sins, and the resolution, with the help of God, not to fall into sin again. [...] it is not necessary [...] to investigate [...] sins committed in invincible ignorance of their evil, or due to an inculpable error of judgment. Although these sins are not imputable, they do not cease, [...] to be an evil and a disorder." (3.7).
I wonder, is there are norms about refusing penitents who "reasonably ask for it" and are not excommunicated? Or if norms for confessors are only about absolution? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refusal 

message: The history section of this article needs improvement to describe more clearly what was new in various centuries, etc. For now, I offer the following quote from a not-authoritative source:
"The practice of private confession developed in monasteries in Ireland in the 6th century and quickly spread." Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Improvements 

message: After checking this whole article for grammar and spelling, I would describe it as quite repetitive and not encyclopedic in style. It reads more like a guide for Catholics, with numerous exhortations, than a concise summary of the major points on the topic including salient points in the history. If those who are greatly involved in this area agree, I would be willing to trim the article to encyclopedic proportions, or I encourage someone else to do the same. Ping me if the need seems obvious to you. Jzsj (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite needed? 

message: I do not understand this sentence in the lede:  The second half does not follow from the first half, they are basically non-sequitirs. I also do not understand the usage of double-quotes in this case. Elizium23 (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think is better "While in current practice reconciliation services may be used to bring out the communal nature of sacraments, all mortal sins must be confessed, while without being strictly necessary, confession of venial sins is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church."--Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That is still a non-sequitir. What does the type of sins being confessed have to do with a communal celebration (versus, I assume, a one-on-one private celebration as is the norm)? Elizium23 (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

text: This may well need expansion. My point was that after a communal penance service, as they exist today, one must still confess mortal, but not venial, sins. As to the double quotes, you got in before I copy edited my work. I changed to italics first chance I got. Jzsj (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My (anecdotal, limited) experience has been uniform: communal penance liturgies are celebrated once or twice a year during Lent and Advent, and they involve a celebration of the Word, a communal Confiteor, the Lord's Prayer, and then an extended period of individual auricular confessions. If you are referring to something such as a "general absolution" style of communal penance with no individual confessions involved, then yes, I can see how this line makes sense in that mortal sins still need individual confession plus absolution. But, as I said, that is far outside the norm of what I am aware of. What is the use of "general absolution" outside of imminent danger of death, and who even uses it that way? Is it not gravely illicit and moreover, confusing to the faithful, who have just been "absolved" but still must confess it all? Elizium23 (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: General absolution may be used when there are too few priests to handle all the penitents (CCC 1483). General absolution is given with the understanding that individual confession of mortal sins will follow at the earliest opportunity. Also, the complex history of the sacrament and the many outstanding questions suggest that the revision of the rite called for by Vatican II is still in process. What does it mean to absolve from a venial sin? If mortal sins are not as common as we used to think and if venial sins are better handled in a communal way, what might be the most effective means to foster Christian growth through this community sign or sacrament? Jzsj (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know; I am not competent to answer those questions and we have no business discussing them here on this talk page. Could we perhaps adjust the phrases in question so as to shed better light on the general topic from the lede paragraph? Elizium23 (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: When I wrote the above I was giving background for my use of "current practice" and "discipline of the Church" in the lede. I'm still above Tariff penance in my effort to improve the article. I suggest that the wording of the lede may depend on the result of current editing. Jzsj (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

text: What do you think about "mortal sins must be confessed and confession of venial sins is recommended but not required." or something like that.Rafaelosornio (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's clearly stated in its proper place, under "Necessity and frequency" and is also in the lede. If we keep repeating the same ideas then this will sound more like a religion class than an encyclopedic article. Jzsj (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I do not understand 

message: Regarding my edits tonight: (1) Canon Law does not "teach" doctrine so it should not typically be referenced to expound upon doctrine. Canon Law is rooted in doctrine and reflects the Magisterial interpretation thereof, and in certain places, the Lawgiver cites a particular doctrine in support of the legislation. (2) "Current Church teaching" is a weird turn of phrase for a Church whose doctrines do not change in substance, no matter whether Joseph Martos calls some of them "outdated". (3) Joseph Martos of Ligouri Press (whoever he is - surprsingly, not a Jesuit?) and the National Catholic Reporter is quite vicious with the Trent Council Fathers! He's removed from them by 500 years — how's he know they're ignorant of Scriptural studies? I have attributed his strong opinions to Martos rather than Wikipedia. (4) Poschmann has come to a strange conclusion. I wrapped it in "" because his assertion seems to fly in the face of Church teaching about Purgatory's temporal punishment in the afterlife. Could we get a little segue here from what Poschmann believes to what the Church believes and back again? There must be some reason Jzsj decided to pop that plot twist in there at that final point (although it's now been moved around a bit.) Thanks, folks! Elizium23 (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: A few more things

message: I propose that  was correct above in stating that the proper name for the sacrament should be the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The present history section explains the confusion that arose, and still persists, over the relationship of penance to reconciliation. Reconciliation is the purpose of the sacrament, for which amendment is more important than the penance itself. Please advance good arguments against or for the move if you have them. For those still searching for Sacrament of Penance, their search would be directed to the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  Jzsj (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What do WP:RS say? Does not the CCC call it "Penance"? Elizium23 (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

text: *As regards WP:TITLECHANGES, Vaquero100 originated the article here, calling it Sacrament of Reconciliation and giving a very intelligent emphasis on reconciliation, at the start. Jzsj (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: * That may be a good point.  If you wish to argue that previous moves shouldn't have happened, and the title should go back to the first non-stub version, TITLECHANGES is not a good counterargument to that.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change in name to "Sacrament of Reconciliation"

message: A while ago, I removed text that said the Easter Duty is to be performed "between Ash Wednesday and Trinity Sunday". It is back, with a citation to Canon 920, which says nothing specific other than "paschal time". IIRC, the exact period varies, with the USCCB granting an extension to Trinity Sunday, but I am not aware of a corresponding "Lenten Duty" for reception of Holy Communion. A better secondary source would be preferable.
On a related note, Canon Law is cited often here with reference to a DejaVu text file. I am not sure of the copyright status of this file. Canon Law is reproduced under license at IntraText.com and at Vatican.va. (In fact, it is easier to reference, because it is split into multiple addressable pages.) Also, Amazon.com is not usable as a citation. I recommend that any "purchase this book" link such as Amazon or litpress.org be transformed into a suitable  that will not attempt to sell us a product. Elizium23 (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the source I used previously does mention a range of dates. And that is precisely why I reduced the claim to "during the Easter season" — it is not necessary to get into the weeds of specifying exact dates whch vary by territory. Elizium23 (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: What the Catholic church teaches today is that at the Council of Trent, "Even though manuscripts in the Vatican Library provided material for the emendation of some expressions, they by no means made it possible to inquire into 'ancient and approved authors' farther back than the liturgical commentaries of the Middle Ages."General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 7. Only with modern historical studies was the early history of the sacraments recaptured. New Advent bases its article on sources from 1911, before Poschmann'c classic study quoted in this Wiki article, and before modern Catholic theology of Scripture became accepted by the Catholic magisterium. Forgiveness of sin in documents like the Didache was not the origin of the Sacrament of Reconciliation as it developed from the second century onward. Beginning the history section with this matter from New Advent would only underscore the unreliability of New Advent as a source in this instance.  Jzsj (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Advent as a source here 

message: After reading through the History section, I was concerned that the history provided is potentially misleading or even incorrect, based on writings from the Early Church Fathers before Cyprian. The authority to forgive sins in one manner or another seems to have been understood (argued below). I petition that information with regard to this be added. Additionally, I'm concerned about the claims of "misinterpreting" Jn 20:21-23, Mt 16:19, and Mt 18:18 and providing an unsubstantiated alternative "correct" interpretation.
It seems to have been understood that to be entirely forgiven of your sin, you had to be both reconciled to God and the Bishop. At ChurchFathers.org, please see citations from Hippolytus, Ignatius of Antioch, and Tertullian among others, who wrote before Cyprian. They note this exact fact and Hippolytus (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]) proclaimed that Bishops directly have authority to forgive sin. Though they are not proof for the current form and development of the Sacrament, they reinforce the assertion that authority of forgiveness of sins was bestowed upon the Church in some manner by Christ. Therefore, I petition that information related to these Church Fathers be added to the History section.
In terms of the biblical interpretations, is there convincing evidence to show that those of the likes of St. Augustine and St. Thomas actually misinterpreted Jn 20:21-23, Mt 16:19, and Mt 18:18, with proof of the alleged "correct" interpretation? I do not have access to Source #3 and the claims in the article are entirely unsupported. Although we can agree it is not men that forgive sin, but God through a charism/gift of the Holy Spirit given to the priest who acts in persona Christi (2 Cor 2:10, 2 Cor 5:20, 18)...as asserted before, the full forgiveness seems to have been indeed contingent upon reconciliation with the Bishop. Further, I would argue that there is no baptismal context for Jn 20:21-23. Mt 16:18-19 speaks of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore doesn't likely apply merely to the earthly community. Since Mt 16:18-19 is an allusion to an office in the earthly OT Davidic Kingdom in Isaiah 22:20-22, and the NT is a spiritual counterpart to the OT, I would argue the fact that the section pertains to the Heavenly Kingdom (and therefore things that pertain to inclusion in the heavenly kingdom, namely sin). This is not to mention both Mt 16:19 and 18:18 apply explicitly to binding and loosing in heaven.
As an aside... It is worth noting that the reliability of Source #3 (Doors to the Sacred by Joseph Martos) is considered questionable among certain groups within the Catholic community. See here:
https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-doors-to-the-sacred-reliable
—Patriotic524 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That portion of the "History" section is decidedly under-sourced. I am not sure of the point other than a polemic to underscore how the Sacrament is a rupture with tradition? Elizium23 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

text: User:Jzsj, can you do something about the perceived neutrality problems of this section?  The Banner talk 23:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: User:The Banner,  I'm mainly concerned about where we end up, in this section. I don't agree that a source like this is as scholarly as Bernard Poschmann and Martos (who has coauthored two books with Richard Rohr). Jzsj (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I humbly admit that you are way better versed in the theological side of that than I am! The Banner talk 09:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potentially Unreliable History and Church Authority to Forgive Sins 

message: See:  -  - ("‎Early practice: Fixed 2 unsubstantiated generalizations")
I'm admittedly not well versed in theology, but I can't see how a theologian's political leanings would be relevant here, other than to cast doubt/aspersions on their conclusions, let alone the verifiability of the theologian's supposed "liberal" leanings. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: the term "liberal" can also be used in theological contexts; see Religious liberalism Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "liberal theologian" 

message: "Confession and penance in the rite of the Eastern Orthodox Church, even to our own day, preserve the character of liberation and healing rather than of judgment. Ruling and healing are seen as the same charism, as in early Christian times. Remission of sin is granted on the basis of sincere repentance and confession. Absolution proclaims God's forgiveness of the sin."
while this may not be inaccurate necessarily, i think this could fall under NPOV & encyclopedic tone, partially for this section pretty much only citing eastern orthodox sources (Eastern Catholics also take the eastern approach to confession!). let me know if i'm off base here.  Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV/encyclopedic tone in eastern christianity section?