Welcome to INGO, you must be new here.
Wait.
You're not.
In fact, there's probably no one on here who deflects more than you.
Regardless, others have pursued the lowest common denominator approach spinoff, not I.
Naturally.
So here I was, having worked up a draft of what I wanted to say on this matter, and was trying to discern when it would be ready. And voila, from an unwitting source, an invitation appears. Basically telling me to get on with it.
Well, here goes it.
-------------------
Catholic Confession
First, I want to thank those who’ve “encouraged” me to address this subject. It has been a long time since I examined this matter, and there were points that I’d either forgotten or didn’t know. So, this exercise has incrementally increased my knowledge of my faith tradition, and in the process, increased my comfort with it. With some help from the Holy Spirit, perhaps some misconceptions can also be corrected.
Second, I feel compelled to remind everyone that this is an integrated response. It includes my own personal view (perhaps too much) along with dogmatic and biblical references. Any lack of clarity is probably a result of my flawed personal expression.
I will try to include references as much as may be appropriate. If I overlook something, or someone wants additional citation, please don’t hesitate.
Finally, I’m not looking to convince anyone that the Catholic way is the right way, or the only way. My goal is to at least allow non-Catholics the opportunity to know what formed this part of the Catholic doctrine, and maybe even understand that it is a reasonable position in the biblical sense.
This is far more explication than proselytising.
I’ll start with the easy part. Google. Here’s a semi-official site with some of these answers:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-confession-in-scripture
There are certainly many others. I invite anyone interested in this to also do their own research.
The problem for me is that those kinds of sites can be hard to connect with. Worse, some of them are actually pretty confrontational/defensive. (Which would be unheard of here on INGO.)
As someone interested in both language and history, that was my starting point for this effort. “Confession” in English is used a couple different ways. The version we’re NOT really talking about is in the nature of an admission or exhortation. “Confess that Jesus is Lord!” Ok. Yeah. That’s a “confession” of a truth, but not a particularly sinful one.
Obviously, the variation at issue is the “confession” of a sin. The admission of a truth of one’s wrongdoing. So it is not as simple as doing a search in Biblegateway for “confess” or “confession.”The linguistic issue leads to the historical one. For Jews during the time of Christ, what was the practice of “confession” like? The concept is “vidui” and the related term “yadah.” The process for Jews would’ve been the context for His comments on the matter.
Here’s a relatively modern look at it:
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1518774/jewish/Is-Confession-a-Jewish-Thing.htm
Also, the wiki has some good information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_(Judaism)
Unsurprisingly, there was a relatively rigid, formulaic structure to it. But, it involved speaking the actual words. It wasn’t a “in the quiet of your heart” kinda thing. It was an active presentation to God - albeit quietly - of the sin. Importantly, if the sin was against someone else, then it was necessary to confess it to that person.
Just at a human level, that makes sense. Admitting a sin to the one sinned against is difficult. Often painful. That difficulty and pain generally reduces the likelihood of committing the same transgression.
So the OT should be understood in this context. But, even the OT includes a role for priests. Leviticus 19:20-22 includes:
Now, there’s the sacrifice issue… which I think we can all agree is an OT thing, and after Jesus (the perfect sacrifice), that part isn’t really a thing. At least not in the sense of killing something.
For my purposes, though, it reveals that at least some of the time - particularly those inter-personal sins, there is a biblical role for the priest. God is the font of forgiveness, but you may need to talk to the priest/guy-at-the-door to get there.
Of course, history is interesting, but I don’t know that any greater inspection is necessary for this. So I’ll skip to the NT.
But, I’ll start before Jesus. Well, before His apostolic ministry.
Mark and Matthew both refer to John the Baptist hearing confessions and assisting in repentence.
Mark 1:4-5 said:
Matthew 3:5-6 said:
So again, in the context of Judaism at the time, there is a human being in the role of hearing confessions thus plenty of biblical support for the role, leading up to Jesus. In Jesus’ time, the act of “confessing” included a physical articulation. That was the expectation. Anything else would be a deviation from that expectation. Having someone present to hear it was not always necessary, but there was nothing wrong with it. And sometimes, it was necessary.
Then the question becomes, did something change?
I guess I’m not sure how much of the NT stuff I should include here. My presumption is that everyone here is familiar with the “bound on earth, bound in heaven” references. While there may be disagreement as to the extent that suggests formation of the papacy and priesthood, I think it is fair to at least agree that there’s biblical support for the ideas of those things. That is, scripture CAN be read to support them, while not necessarily mandating that’s the ONLY interpretation. I will concede that, while I think the Catholic understanding (and likely the Orthodox) is the most righteous, I’m not willing to say that all other interpretations are false or inspired by Satan. (I have my suspicions on the matter, but that’s different.)
The closest I can get to anything that changed are some clarifications about what’s happening in the process. In that vein, I’ll go into some perhaps more obscure passages that I think relate to confession.
One reference that I’ve always found curious relates to what is confessed. As a teen, I participated in Dungeons and Dragons. In the mid-80s this was kinda taboo among Catholic institutions, because it was feared to be a gateway into the occult and satanism. I knew some guys who spent alot of money on the various books.
Acts 19:18-19 said:
Now, no one spent 50k silver on them, but I can see how the costs of those kinds of books would accumulate.
For the purposes here, though, my point is that the people confessed to the church their sinful practices, post-resurrection. I believe this kind of thing also happened with tax collectors and others who were generally guilty of misconduct. It was confessed openly, to make way for redemption and forgiveness by God.
The expectation was NOT that it was an internal thing. Rather, there was an external component to it.
In Romans, there are other references to “confessing with the lips” that could be taken as both confessing that Jesus is the saviour and confessing of sins. Which kinda makes sense at that time, right? A “confession” that Jesus is the messiah could easily have been construed as a sin by Jews. A comparable confession of Jesus as king would not go over well with the Romans. The suggestion of a requirement for a physical act of confession, out loud, was powerful. I see no support for the idea that one manner of confession was necessary to be out loud, while the other was ok to hide.
These expectations did not appear to change after the crucifixion. I am certainly open to contrary authority.
And, I think it important to note that after the bound on earth/bound in heaven, Jesus makes an equally important observation:
Matthew 18:20 said:
Confession to a priest, or other worldly confessor, has the unique advantage of having Christ’s presence in the process. To me, that is an important characteristic of person-to-person confession.
Ultimately, we are left with a kind of standoff. I don’t find anything saying the Catholic tradition is directly contrary to biblical teachings, while conceding that there isn’t anything stating that it is explicitly righteous. Those who ridicule the notion cannot biblically support the assertion that it is against Jesus or any sort of heresy.
There remains the matter of explaining what Catholic practice is, not just dogma.
[Ed. - Zig, I have NO idea why this is getting split into 2 quotes. I've tried 6 different ways to re-join them, but it keeps changing it back. Sorry!]
Initially, and this was probably the root of the emotion in my first response, if that is your view of transactional confession, that’s just terrible. If that’s the way you view all Catholics treating it, I can understand the low view you would have of all Catholics.
In turn, it makes me suspect of how you view your own internal confession routine. If that same transactional angle is the norm, “Hey God, I’m really sorry I did that (or got caught doing it). I really hope I don’t do that again. Thanks for the forgiveness!” I don’t think that’s a good approach for anyone.
I cannot speak for all Catholics. There are surely some that treat it the way you describe. Perhaps worse, modern American Catholics don’t go to confession very often at all. For those who would treat it as a pro forma obligation like you describe, they are unlikely to even go. It isn’t at the right time. There’s so many other things to do. Cat needs waxing. Whatever. Instead of the above description, it doesn’t happen at all.
Rather, I think most Catholics treat confession in the same way that I hear non-Catholic Christians describe it. More of an internal process.
For those who do go regularly, it is an important part of their identity. I mean that in a good way. It isn’t something to brag about. But, it is something that helps them be closer to God, to have that elusive personal relationship with Christ. Somewhat ironically, the people that I’ve known who regularly go (they also tend to go to mass daily), are the least likely to have any mortal sins to confess.
This does lead to another potentially aggravating point: venial v. mortal sins. (The stratification is perhaps a topic for another day.) Venial sins are not required to be confessed to a priest. Venial sins are “normal” sins that don’t necessarily compromise one’s relationship with God, oneself, or others. Mortal sins are the ones that are more serious. Those DO need to be confessed to a priest, as they involve a separation from God and the church.
One resource:
https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/B...36/ArticleID/7699/Confessing-venial-sins.aspx
The Catechism version:
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of penance and reconciliation
While some might object to the last sentence, we were recently discussing the Ascension and pentecost. Those passages are helpful to understand that Jesus did empower His followers.
Importantly, the Catechism has footnotes to scriptures and the writings of Augustine and others. I would encourage anyone curious about this, or any other aspect of Catholicism, to do some light googling on the matter, then go to the Catechism. It isn’t an easy read, but it is quite detailed.
I think it comes back to the question of whether the practice of confession, in the Roman Catholic tradition, is biblically supported. It is.
Is the practice prohibited by the Bible? It is not. Not in the OT nor in the NT.
Was the role of a priest in confession a practice in the early church? Yes, it was (although perhaps foszoe can better present those details).
I understand that my Protestant friends might view the priestly confession as unnecessary. It may be. But, I don’t think it accurate to say it is prohibited, or some heresy. As I’ve pointed out, it isn’t strictly necessary for Catholics all the time, either.
Some of the more esoteric questions, like “At what point are we forgiven?” invite my response of, “I don’t know.”
I mean, it isn’t like I have some great insight into God’s methods.
It makes sense to me that God forgives us when we are fully contrite. There are many passage about forgiveness, but I don’t know that there’s a specific moment that can be derived from all of them.When I find out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I’ll be able to answer both questions!
It is worth emphasizing that I am not presenting this to mock or denigrate any other belief tradition. I have no need or desire to. I think this is a matter of individual conscience. As far as I can tell, I have not mocked or denigrated anyone’s beliefs. There are things I am truly ignorant of, though, so I invite anyone to let me know if I cross any lines.
Hopefully, this post might give someone pause before mocking or denigrating the Catholic tradition on this point.
