/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

He is the acting spiritual Father of your parish. He seems to be a very liberal priest, I'd ask a priest at another parish if it's okay.

>>765709

It's not valid. However there is something called "perfect penance" where you repent completely and it means God forgives your sin.

Repent is not remorse however… If you feel bad about masturbating but don't stop/can't stop you haven't repented.

>>765715

>>765713

It's called perfect contrition and confession is still required for the Euachrist.

And yes, It's a thing.

>>765711

>Who cares what priests do?

Ugh....never mind I don't want to be banned.

>took communion while not in a state of grace

This is the mortal sin of sacrilege. Seek a priest immediately.

Yes, the priest does not "need" to witness your confession to give you the sacrament. But if you do not confess to God truly, then the sacrament is ineffective, therefore the priest is here to be a witness that you have indeed confessed to God, to hear your confession in the name of the Church (since public confession died out as a practice for practical reasons), and to give you spiritual guidance for the sins you struggle with.

I've had to confess urgently before liturgy, once, but the priest was too busy preparing for the liturgy. He told me to pray Psalm 51, confess in front of the icon of Christ, and then tell him about the sins I need guidance for in particular, then he gave me absolution.

Note also that it is an acceptable practice to confess to your spiritual fathe/mother, if they're not a confessor or even a cleric, and then to receive the sacrament from the priest. But it's rare AFAIK, since, in the vast majority of cases, your priest is also your confessor and also your spiritual father.

t. Orthodox so I don't know if you guys understand confession differently

>>765709

1 Timothy 2:5 KJV — For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

No. You need to confess every sin.

How do you expect someone to forgive you if you don't accuse yourself?

When asking forgiveness to a king who must say what you did wrong.

Your sins cannot be worse than mine, so go ahead like I did. Besides the priest has heard worse and he is forbidden to ask you why or judge even if you say you used to be a faggot who sucked 200 dicks forgive the vulgarity.

Sometimes I wished pic related so true so much. But the way to God is never easy

>>765744

John 20:22-23 KJV - And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

James 5:16 KJV Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

>>765744

Can you believe there is no contradiction between 1 Timothy 2:5 and John 20:21-23?

>Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

There's not even any contradiction between Timothy 2:5 and James 5:14-15!

>Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.

Therefore there is no contradiction between 1 Timothy 2:5 and this situation, either. I believe that Protestants contradict James 5:14-15 all the day though, which is worrying.

>>765735

I don't think that's legitimate in Catholicism because the minister of the sacrament of penance is the priest of the Bishop only.

There could be a case for example if the priest was deaf and someone had to translate the stuff to him, but in this case I don't think he would have the permission of the Bishop to "hear" confession unless it was an emergency (imminent death, all the eccleasiastic prohibitions are instantly lifted).

Either way those persons as well as the priest would be under the vow of confidentiality under the penalty of excommunication and grievous temporal penalties.

>>765749

That is if the priest opened his mouth which I can count with my hands the times that happened in the last 2000 years.

>>765759

Meant for

>>765748

>>765759

Not gonna even discuss every point of your pic but whoever wrote it knows much about Catholicism as I know about liberal arts.

The apostles don't possess the power to forgive sins, they forgive them in the name of Christ. It's Christ that forgives sins, as the pharisees well said only God forgives sins.

>>765764

A proof of that is that if one is not truly regret it doesn't matter how many times one goes to confession and the priests forgives him. He commits sacrilege because God knows he isn't truly sorry and therefore He doesn't forgive him.

>>765764

>The apostles don't possess the power to forgive sins, they forgive them in the name of Christ.

Direct contradiction

"The apostles don't forgive sins"

"They (the apostles) forgive them"

The second sentence is the correct RCC teaching, consistent with the phrasing of the article shared

>1495 Only priests who have received the faculty of absolving from the authority of the Church can forgive sins in the name of Christ.

Priests forgive sins in the name of Christ

>>765709

Priests can but only in emergency circumstances. I'm not certain whether that would qualify, I believe it is to be observed strictly.

>>765723

>The absolute state of Prots

>>765709

The Church says that in cases where validity is not certain, the Church protects the layman who didn't know any better. So if you believed that that absolution was valid, the Church provided the faculties and it was valid. But generally this kind of absolution is given only in emergency situations.

>>765768

Thanks for correcting me brother.

What you said is what I mean in the first place.

>>765922

I assume you are referring to the indulgences?

Then the pic should say

>all/some of your temporal punishment in purgatory has been remitted because you performed [insert act of charity], thanks to the power conferred by Christ on the Church.

There should be a footnote saying

>I hope you went to confession first with a contrite heart, otherwise this indulgence is useless for you.

>>765712

>>765713

>>765732

>>765735

>>765749

>>765901

>>765908

I’m op (my ip reset). I have another question for the Catholics in the audience: I am planning on going to their actual confession time this Saturday. Should I confess the sins that I was (maybe/maybe not) absolved of today? Assuming I don’t do them again between today and next Sunday. I recognize how serious they are, but I just don’t fully understand the faiths stance on this specific confession situation

>>765937

I would. It can't hurt and it'll set your mind at ease over whether that was a valid absolution or not.

>>765937

Confess All your sins than sin no more.

>>765937

Let me explain it like this: if you confessed to an ex Catholic priest who became a heretic but you didn't know he was a heretic, the Church says your confession was valid because you didn't know any better and the Church automatically provided that priest with faculties for a valid absolution. Also, in cases of doubtful validity of sacraments, the Church always presumes validity.

I personally think you should nevertheless confess the sins before that impromptu absolution just to be 100% sure.

>>765937

You must confess them entirely and I assume that your priest absolved you in good faith. I think that if you were shot now you would go to heaven (provided you didn't sin mortality in the meantime)

There are certain situations where a general absolution is given.

Imagine the following situation.

During the bombing of a city people are hidden in an air strike shelter.

Its very likely that they will die in moments and some of them are worried because they didn't have time to confess their sins.

Well there's a priest with them but there's no time to go do confession.

What the priest does is giving an general absolution to everyone there, and if they really wanted to confess their sins they would go to heaven.

Luckily Joe survived the attack and since he is alive and he desired to go to confession before he now goes to the nearest Catholic Church and goes to confession.

So Tldr you need to tell everything to the priest.

What your priest did was some kind of Abuse but I assume he did it in good faith, or probably wasn't really an absoluting or just a blessing, I don't known what he said specifically.

Just go there anon. The sooner the best.

>>765950

Having been to confession before many times, I can tell you that he did give me the regular confessional absolution (I even decided to google it again to make sure, and the text was what I remember).

The exact dialogue of the conversation was what I posted in the greentext (plus the absolution prayer)

>Me: “is there anyone who can do confessions before the next service”

>Priest: ”ah I’m sorry, we do confessions Saturday and on weekdays. :et me ask you where do you usually go to church?”

>Me: ”well, I should be going here”

>Priest: ”I see.” *puts hand over my head* "God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

>Me: "thank you"

>Priest: ”alright, now behave yourself”

I think (based on his facial expressions at the time) he understood what I meant by "I should be going here" to mean I'd been skipping church, so I think if we were to be 100% legalists on the issue we could say that I had only confessed the church skipping and hadn't confessed my other sins, but on the other hand the absolution doesn't say "I absolve you from one specific sin and no others" it says "I absolve you from your sins." So I'm not 100% sure if I had a valid absolution this morning but I'm kinda leaning towards yes, but also I should definitely do a proper confession asap (which in my case is this tuesday)

Let's hope a safe doesn't fall on me tomorrow, I'd hate to be wrong

If you died you'd probably go to heaven.

All was done in good faith and you want to go to regular confession.

>>765984

Imagine putting your eternal security in a theology that says "probably"

>>765992

>being blind by pride and thinking that he is superior to St. Paul who knew that he could go to hell

>>766006

You mean the apostle Paul who wrote these?

Romans 10:13 KJV — For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Ephesians 2:8 KJV — For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 KJV — Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

>>765901

>>765937

This, as far as I know the only time priests is supposed to do something like this is in dire circumstances, like someone trying to repent while dying. Not to say that this rule is strictly observed (as we can see here).

Since you went to the effort of going before a priest to confess, God's certainly forgiven you of your sins. But since you're worried about it, I would suggest confessing your earlier sins just to get them off your mind. God won't hold it against you.

>>766010

Then either he is contradicting himself or your view is wrong.

Also believing in Jesus but not doing what he ordered is worth shit. It isn't even belief.

>>766010

proof-reading leads to error, not Truth

St. Paul told us to approach salvation with fear and trembling, in another place, as a foot-race. I'm sure the exact same guy I've encountered in the other thread.

>>766263

>Sounds like works to me

How do you reconcile your view with Ephesians 2:8-9

>>766264

Bad theology will send you to hell.

>>766280

Soteriology*

>>766277

It means you can't earn your salvation through works. They're still essential though. Your works show whether or not you have a true faith, if you have works then God may see fit to bestow upon you the grace necessary for salvation, if you don't then he'll withold the grace. Either way you didn't earn the grace through your works your works are merely a sign of your faith in Christ.

1. You cannot merit salvation by works

2. Works are still necessary to receive the grace necessary for salvation, the fact you can't earn it doesn't mean they're not important

>>766308

2 is a direct contradiction

>>766318

OK lol then explain how do you understand the quote of the other anon

>>766353

And a weak one at that, ugh…

>>766353

Nice joke Satan.

Sincerely I don't know twhy atheists think faggotry is normal. I mean I thought they liked science.

>>766339

The quote of who?

The scripture here? >>766263

The passage gives a picture of the righteous talking with the son and he affirms their actions. Where does he say their status as righteous is because of the action?

Sola fide is the only consistent position with Ephesians 2.

>>766366

There other are there talking with the King. They know him and are quite surprised about being judged. Anyway there are tons of other passages.

Matthew 7:24-27

Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock. And every one that heareth these my words and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.

Matthew 25:1-13

“Then the kingdom of heaven shall be like ten virgins, who, taking their lamps, went out to meet the groom and the bride. But five of them were foolish, and five were prudent. For the five foolish, having brought their lamps, did not take oil with them. Yet truly, the prudent ones brought the oil, in their containers, with the lamps. Since the bridegroom was delayed, they all fell asleep, and they were sleeping. But in the middle of the night, a cry went out: ‘Behold, the groom is arriving. Go out to meet him.’ Then all those virgins rose up and trimmed their lamps. But the foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give to us from your oil, for our lamps are being extinguished.’ The prudent responded by saying, ‘Lest perhaps there may not be enough for us and for you, it would be better for you to go to the vendors and buy some for yourselves.’ But while they were going to buy it, the groom arrived. And those who were prepared entered with him to the wedding, and the door was closed. Yet truly, at the very end, the remaining virgins also arrived, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open to us.’ But he responded by saying, ‘Amen I say to you, I do not know you.’ And so you must be vigilant, because you do not know the day or the hour.

Salvation isn't one time event then, it's a journey and we must always have oil in our lamp.

And basically msot of Jesus parables like the one about lazarus and the rich man.

>inb4 people who have faith as an effect have good works.

Then you are lying. Because you and everyone even with faith we have temptations and frequently we fall into them. Of course you guys when such thing happens claim after all I wasn't saved, now I am lol.

>Sola fide is the only consistent position with Ephesians 2.

I don't see why you prots have such a thing for this verse. It completely confirms the Catholic doctrine of Justification which isn't like your pastor told you. Google it before making a fool out of yourself. Muh work salvation meme.

>>766318

No it isn't. You just don't understand that while you can't earn grace through works you still need to do works to be worthy of having grace bestowed on you.

Think of it like this, you're hired to clean a house and the owner has 1 million dollars to give you. There is nothing you can do in a day to earn that million dollars, house cleaning just isn't that valuable, your work doesn't obligate the owner to hand over the million. However if you do a good job then the owner might decide to be charitable and give you the million anyway, you didn't earn it, it was a gift based on your good work.

On the other hand if you don't do anything at all then the owner might decide to withhold his million.

The thing to understand that just because Gods grace is given based on how you act doesn't mean it is "earned". You can't earn grace through works because it's far too precious and nothing you can ever do will mean God is obligated to bestow it on you. It's always a gift and always given because God wills it, not because God is obligated to give it to you because of some contract where you accrued enough good boy points. That doesn't mean your actions are entirely irrelevant however, how you conduct yourself is directly relevant to whether God chooses to bestow the unmerited grace upon you or not. You might not be able to earn grace, but you can certainly be found unworthy of it and that's why Jesus says he will reject people who were believers because they didn't fulfill his wishes.

>>766497

>You didn't earn it

>It was based on your work

Yes, it's a contradiction

I was looking at https://biblehub.com/bsb/2_peter/1.htm and I was going to quote something but you know what? Just read the whole thing, its good for you.

>>766522

The issue is Paul addressing is people believing that God is obligated to save them because of their works. He's warning against believing that salvation is a transaction where you do good things and in return God must reward you. Salvation is not a transaction you make with God nor is it a contract. God will bestow his grace on anyone who makes an earnest effort to follow Christs example and teachings, but you didn't earn that grace, you got gifted it completely out of Gods goodwill and love for you.

The point Paul is trying to make is that Christian life is not a LARP where you try to accumulate enough XP from good works to be accepted into Gods kingdom. Nobody is deserving of Gods grace but he chooses to bless some individuals with it anyway based on whether they truly accept and know him through the teachings of the Son, Jesus Christ. Works are a tangible indicator of your faith and acceptance of Christ, without them your "faith" is just hot air.

This is the interpretation that best matches what we see in the scriptures. Jesus makes it very clear that he will either accept or reject his followers based on their actions in life. James says that faith without works is dead (i.e not a saving faith). Paul says that it is faith in God that saves, not the works themselves. All of these facts are reconciled in the above view that:

1. Grace is never merited, it is a gift given by God because of his love for humanity

2. Without works there is no such thing as a saving faith

3. Christ will reject some of his supposed followers based on the fact their actions did not show them to be true followers of Him in life.

>>766536

>Works are a tangible indicator of your faith and acceptance of Christ, without them your "faith" is just hot air.

Yes!

>Jesus makes it very clear that he will either accept or reject his followers based on their actions

No!

I think you're just being loose in your wording. Do you affirm sola fide?

>>765709

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QICKUkEj5WM

tl;dr I think his absolution was valid, but not licit.

Watch this pronto.

also

>Calling the Holy Mass """service"""

>>765992

Imagine thinking that you will ever know your eternal security for sure. Or that of anyone else. Much less due to any deeds or lack of them.

Christians hope for salvation; for that, they place their trust in their Lord, ask for His grace, and so on.

To anyone who thinks that prots and catholics disagree on _that_ much:

This joint declaration by the Catholic Church and some Lutherans might illustrate how the two denominations agree on surprisingly a lot:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

>The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church[9] are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith in Christ. It does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.

>Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

(read the text itself for specific points and comparisons)