Are you saying that you do not need to repent of your sins and ask God to forgive you?
I'm not referring to apologising to another human you have wronged, but to God.
SALVATION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
- Thread starter GodsGrace
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Are you saying that you do not need to repent of your sins and ask God to forgive you?
I'm not referring to apologising to another human you have wronged, but to God.
God has already forgiven me for my sins. The sacrifice of His Son has accomplished forgiveness for all sins, mine and everyone else's.
Repentance for sins is brought about by the Holy Spirit, whom I received when I was "born again". When I sin unintentionally, the Holy Spirit shows me my error, and I change my behavior. It is an ongoing process.
What I most definitely don't need is to confess my sins to a priest and then follow some prescription for forgiveness.
Yes. It's called "The Bible". I am not going to continue this discussion endlessly.
You are a Catholic, thereby putting yourself under a revised version of the Old Covenant law. You rely on a separate priesthood that dictates your behavior based on what they have written, just like the time of the Old Testament, before Christ came. I am a Spirit-filled, non-denominational Christian. I go by a living faith and am continually guided by the Holy Spirit, not the rules invented by fallible men.
Galatians 4:28-5:1, "But you, brothers and sisters, are children of the promise like Isaac. But just as at that time the one born by natural descent persecuted the one born according to the Spirit, so it is now. But what does the scripture say? “Throw out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the inheritance with the son” of the free woman. Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman. For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be subject again to the yoke of slavery."
Last edited:
Translation - "No I do not have any scripture to support my opinions"
Not so much Sola Scriptura as Sola jaybo.
Why are you distorting what I wrote? Jealousy? Inadequacy?
I repeat: the entire Bible supports my position. Unlike yourself, I believe God's word in its entirety, not the false doctrine of controlling men.
Once again... You are a Catholic, thereby putting yourself under a revised version of the Old Covenant law. You rely on a separate priesthood that dictates your behavior based on what they have written, just like the time of the Old Testament, before Christ came. I am a Spirit-filled, non-denominational Christian. I go by a living faith and am continually guided by the Holy Spirit, not the rules invented by fallible men.
Deal with it!
I don't believe Catholics rely on James 5:16 for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Although I would say that it means we are to confess our sins when we sin against EACH OTHER.
IOW, we would be seeking forgiveness of a fellow believer if we have wronged him in some way.
Protestants also speak to an elder or their pastor if they feel unforgiven by God.
This is for support. In Protestantism it is understood that each believer is a priest.
The CC uses John 20:19 for scriptural support for the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession).
Jesus breathed on the Apostles and told them they had to power to forgive sin or retain sin.
This power is then passed on by the laying on of hands to the next generation of priests...
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1john 1:9)
We need to confess our sins and then God will forgive us.
and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. (James 5:15)
Jesus taught us to ask God for forgiveness (Mt 6:12).
We need to confess our sins and then God will forgive us.
and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. (James 5:15)
Jesus taught us to ask God for forgiveness (Mt 6:12).
Are you sure that John 20:19 is the verse you mean? "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the disciples had gathered together and locked the doors of the place because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders. Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” "
I don't see any confusion here. The resurrected Christ appeared to the disciples, who were hiding from the Jewish leadership out of fear, and wished them peace. What did Jesus mean? Isn't it obvious?
Believe what you want. Interpret Scripture however you want. I am not interested in your Catholic doctrine!
You put yourself back under the law, interpreted for you by your separate priesthood. It has nothing to do with the New Covenant.
"Therefore let it be known to you, brothers, that through this one forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you" Acts 13:38 [present ternse]
"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. [present tense] Blessed is the one against whom the Lord will never count sin.” Romans 4:7 (quoting Psalm 32:1-2)
"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our offenses [present tense], according to the riches of his grace that he lavished on us in all wisdom and insight." Ephesians 1:7-8
"He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. [present tense]" Colossians 1:13-14
"And even though you were dead in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your flesh [past imperfect], he nevertheless made you alive with him, having forgiven all your transgressions. [present participle]" Colossians 2:13
"Just as the Lord has forgiven you, [past tense] so you also forgive others." Colossians 3:13b
" then he says, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no longer.” Now where there is forgiveness of these, [present tense] there is no longer any offering for sin." Hebrews 10:17-18
"I am writing to you, little children, that your sins have been forgiven because of his name." 1 John 2:12
This is what the Bible says over and over and over! YOUR SINS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN!!!!
It makes me sad that you believe the teachings of men who want to control you and make you feel perpetually guilty, thereby keeping you under their power. It is for freedom that Christ has set us FREE! (Galatians 5:1)
Last edited:
That says that the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed because of what Jesus has done.
It says nothing about how or when that forgiveness is applied. It doesn't say that all the sins of all the people present have been forgiven.
As Peter said in Acts 2 “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" Peter didn't say all your sins have already been forgiven.
Yes when your sins are forgiven you will be blessed.
That doesn't say that all your sins have already been forgiven
Yes because of Christ'sm sacrifice our sins can be forgiven.
It says nothing about how or when that forgiveness is applied
Again that says that the forgiveness of sins is because of what Jesus has done.
It says nothing about how or when that forgiveness is applied. It doesn't say that all the sins of all the people have been forgiven.
Read the previous verse
and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
When were baptised all our previous sins were forgiven.
Yes God has forgiven past sins when we repented and asked for forgiveness
Yes, God forgives past sins when we repent and ask for forgiveness
Yes our past sins have been forgiven when we repented and asked for forgiveness
Yes our past sins have been forgiven when we repented and asked for forgiveness.
Now answer my scripture
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive [FUTURE} our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1john 1:9)
We need to confess our sins and then God will forgive us.
and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. [FUTURE] (James 5:15)
Jesus taught us to ask God for forgiveness (Mt 6:12).
Believe what you want, or rather what your priests tell you to believe. As I have said many times before and will continue to say, I believe what the Bible clearly says.
Put yourself under the Law, keep Christ on the cross, be disciples of fallible men, and unquestionably believe whatever your unScriptural denomination requires of you. I will continue to live in Christ (who has forgiven all my sins) and follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
"Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we [I!] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have also obtained access into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of God’s glory." Romans 5:1-2 => Present tense <=
It would seem you only believe some of the Bible. You are again ducking the scriptures I quoted.
But if you don't want to answer them - OK.
I believe the entire Bible.
Also, I don't have to respond the way you want me to respond. You quoted some out-of-context verses and then put your RCC spin on them; so what?
Our sins -- all of them -- have been forgiven in Christ.
Shalom, Sister.
You write:
‘I guess the big question is: Is confession necessary for sins to be forgiven for salvation?’
Let’s start by looking at the nature of Divine Love:
In 1 John 4:8 we read that the Beloved is love (agape). I see no reason to disagree with this!
His love is expressed in two ways; the first being that which creates and preserves.
As you know, Genesis tells us that man was the last to be created on earth; perhaps in a matter of days after the first of creation (as some believe); or many millions of years afterwards (as others believe). Either way, the Creator’s preserving love was – and is – bestowed on all created things, without discrimination.
The Catholic Church teaches that the Beloved’s existence can be known with certainty: ‘In the light of human reason by those things which have been made.’ (Denzinger 1806; cf. 1785 and 1391). Created things – held in being by His preserving love – would have remained the only sign of the Beloved’s existence, had He not chosen to reveal Himself to humankind; and to establish personal relationships with each one of us. He does this by means of a different expression of His love; namely, sanctifying love (known also as ‘Grace’).
According to the Council of Trent, sanctifying love: ‘(Transforms) an unjust person into a just person and from an enemy into a friend (of God).’ (Denzinger 799).
Sanctifying love – by which we are justified, and given a claim to the inheritance of Heaven – can most certainly be lost; and indeed is lost (through a process of gradual diminishment) with every grievous sin.
This truth is the very foundation of the Christian concept of the Fall of humankind, and its need for Redemption through Christ.
As you know, Genesis tells us that the Beloved took the first man, and settled him in the Garden of Eden; to cultivate and take care of it. This man was given a command: ‘You are free to eat of all the trees in the garden. But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat.’ (Gen. 2:16-17). In a footnote to these verses the producers of the Jerusalem Bible (the Dominican scholars of the École Biblique de Jérusalem) write:
‘This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, will usurp. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen creatures do not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride.’ (‘The New Jerusalem Bible’).
Pride – ever an assault on the Beloved’s sovereignty – is the root of all sin.
C. S. Lewis writes: ‘Pride is a universal human problem. Everyone suffers from it to some degree. When we have exalted ourselves in pride, God does not want to punish us and bring us low but rather to forgive and restore us. He says again and again in Scripture, humble yourselves, and I will exalt you. This gives us hope and encouragement. God takes pleasure in our efforts to humble ourselves, and he loves to bless and exalt the humble. For just as pride is the root of all sin, so “humility is the root, mother, nurse, foundation, and bond of all virtue,” as John Chrysostom once remarked.’ (‘Pride and Humility’).
A disgruntled Roman legionnaire is said to have scribbled on some wall: ‘Ego semper in excremento, solum altitudo variat.’ (‘I will always be in excrement, only the height varies.’ – polite translation). It is the same with pride. It is always with us – to a greater or lesser extent.
Note Lewis’ words: ‘When we have exalted ourselves in pride, God does not want to punish us and bring us low but rather to forgive and restore us. He says again and again in Scripture, humble yourselves, and I will exalt you.’
Lewis is, of course, correct.
When we sin, we break the very first of the Beloved’s commandments: ‘You shall have no others gods to rival me.’ (Exodus: 20:3). When we sin, we make gods of ourselves. In effect, we say to the Beloved: ‘I don’t give a hoot about your Way, it is my way that matters. Not your Will be done on Earth, but mine!’
Sanctifying love is never a forced love; if it were, then we would all be holy. The devil himself would be holy. No, sanctifying love has to be accepted, freely. And how do we demonstrate our acceptance? By submitting to the Beloved’s Will; by obeying His Laws; by meeting His conditions.
Continued:
Concerning the doctrine of original sin:
It is important to realise – the Church teaches – that original sin is called ‘sin’ in an analogical, rather than literal sense. We are not born with sin in the normal sense of that word; rather, we are born without our original holiness; without sanctifying grace. In other words, we are born with a ‘fallen human nature’.
The remedy – according to the Church – is Baptism; which sanctifies our soul and, in so doing, ‘washes away original sin’ by restoring our souls to their original holiness.
The Church teaches that those who die in a state of ‘original sin’ are excluded from the ‘Beatific Vision’.
This doctrine was declared by both the 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-1445).
The Catholic Encyclopaedia defines the ‘Beatific Vision’ as: ‘The immediate knowledge of God which the angelic spirits and the souls of the just enjoy in Heaven. It is called "vision" to distinguish it from the mediate knowledge of God which the human mind may attain in the present life. And since in beholding God face to face the created intelligence finds perfect happiness, the vision is termed "beatific".’
According to the Church, Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent.
In its Fifth Session, the Council of Trent issued the following decrees:
‘If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema: - whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.’
‘If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam, - which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, - is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema.’
‘If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting, - whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, - let him be anathema.’ (The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent: Trans. J. Waterworth; my emphasis).
Joseph Sylvester Hunter reminds us that the Fathers:
‘Frequently speak of a sinner as a shipwrecked man, who seeks to support himself on a plank, and when the first fails him, grasps a second.’ (‘Outlines of Dogmatic Theology: Complete in Three Volumes’).
The first ‘plank’ is, of course, baptism; without which – according the Church – no one can enter Heaven.
Continued:
It is important to realise – the Church teaches – that original sin is called ‘sin’ in an analogical, rather than literal sense. We are not born with sin in the normal sense of that word; rather, we are born without our original holiness; without sanctifying grace. In other words, we are born with a ‘fallen human nature’.
The remedy – according to the Church – is Baptism; which sanctifies our soul and, in so doing, ‘washes away original sin’ by restoring our souls to their original holiness.
The Church teaches that those who die in a state of ‘original sin’ are excluded from the ‘Beatific Vision’.
This doctrine was declared by both the 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-1445).
The Catholic Encyclopaedia defines the ‘Beatific Vision’ as: ‘The immediate knowledge of God which the angelic spirits and the souls of the just enjoy in Heaven. It is called "vision" to distinguish it from the mediate knowledge of God which the human mind may attain in the present life. And since in beholding God face to face the created intelligence finds perfect happiness, the vision is termed "beatific".’
According to the Church, Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent.
In its Fifth Session, the Council of Trent issued the following decrees:
‘If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema: - whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.’
‘If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam, - which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, - is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema.’
‘If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting, - whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, - let him be anathema.’ (The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent: Trans. J. Waterworth; my emphasis).
Joseph Sylvester Hunter reminds us that the Fathers:
‘Frequently speak of a sinner as a shipwrecked man, who seeks to support himself on a plank, and when the first fails him, grasps a second.’ (‘Outlines of Dogmatic Theology: Complete in Three Volumes’).
The first ‘plank’ is, of course, baptism; without which – according the Church – no one can enter Heaven.
Continued:
Concerning the necessity for confession:
Hunter goes on the say that: ‘The second plank is the Sacrament of Penance, which avails for one who has lost the grace of Baptism, and is again plunged in the abyss of sin.’ (‘Ibid’; my emphasis).
I have referenced Leviticus, Chapter 13 (Development of Doctrine; Post 144).
This Chapter is concerned with ‘tzaraat’ – an apparently serious collection of skin diseases, prevalent among the Israelites – and the system used to deal with it.
Levite priests were empowered (by Yahweh) to inspect individuals afflicted with this condition. Those found to be ‘tamei’ (‘unclean’) were excluded from the sanctuary – and from their community.
John Wesley writes (of the afflicted) that:
‘His clothes shall be rent – In the upper and fore parts, which were most visible. This was done partly as a token of sorrow, because though this was not a sin, yet it was an effect of sin, and a sore punishment, whereby he was cut off both from converse with men, and from the enjoyment of God in his ordinances; partly as a warning to others to keep at a due distance from him wheresoever he came.’ (‘Complete Bible Commentary’).
The afflicted were obliged to remain outside their community, until their infection was healed; confirmed as such by means of subsequent priestly examinations. Only when pronounced ‘tahor’ (‘clean’) were they re-admitted to the community.
‘Tzaraat’ was a disease of the body. Sin, of course, is a disease of the soul – one that can affect everyone; even those who have been baptised, and thus endowed with sanctifying grace. Sin, as you know, can result in exclusion from Heaven (the Community for which we were created).
As you know, the Catholic Church teaches that sin, committed after baptism, can be forgiven through the sacrament of reconciliation…through confession.
As it was necessary for victims of ‘tzaraat’ to present themselves for inspection by a priest of the Israelites (and how else could the priest have assessed their condition?); so must the sinner present himself to a priest of the Church; so that a sound, and just, assessment of their sin can be made.
The Bishops and priests of the Church have been empowered by Christ to ‘retain; or ‘remit’ sin. How can they exercise this function without knowledge? And how can they acquire knowledge without confession?
So yes, confession is necessary.
Answers to Specific Questions:
You mention the Didache, and ask if it refers to the ‘Penitential Rite at Mass’.
I don’t think so. Here’s why.
The following verses are taken from ‘The Didache: The Original Greek Text with Four English Translations’; Roberts-Donaldson’s translation:
‘In the church (ἐκκλησίᾳ) you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life.’ (4.14).
Compare:
‘You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light’ (Letter of Barnabas; A.D. 74).
To ‘acknowledge (our) transgressions’ is to confess them (see 14:1); whether privately or publicly, the verse doesn’t say. One may presume the latter; perhaps in preparation for collective worship on the Sunday.
And again:
‘But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.’ (14:1; my emphasis).
This verse speaks of both confession and public gathering (the latter, in order to ‘break bread’). Clearly, these are quite separate activities. Note that confession must come before the gathering itself and not during it; which indicates – it seems to me – that this act was intended to be a private, and secret, affair.
In A.D. 459, Pope St. Leo the Great wrote an epistle to all the Bishops through Campania. He writes:
‘With regard to penance, what is demanded of the faithful, is clearly not that an acknowledgement of the nature of individual sins written in a little book be read publicly, since it suffices that the states of consciences be made known to the priests alone in secret confession.
‘For that confession is sufficient, which is first offered to God, then also to a priest, who serves as an intercessor for the transgressions of the penitents. For then, indeed, more will be able to be incited to penance, if the conscience of the one confessing is not exposed to the ears of the people.’ (‘Magna Indign’; Denzinger 145).
Continued:
Hunter goes on the say that: ‘The second plank is the Sacrament of Penance, which avails for one who has lost the grace of Baptism, and is again plunged in the abyss of sin.’ (‘Ibid’; my emphasis).
I have referenced Leviticus, Chapter 13 (Development of Doctrine; Post 144).
This Chapter is concerned with ‘tzaraat’ – an apparently serious collection of skin diseases, prevalent among the Israelites – and the system used to deal with it.
Levite priests were empowered (by Yahweh) to inspect individuals afflicted with this condition. Those found to be ‘tamei’ (‘unclean’) were excluded from the sanctuary – and from their community.
John Wesley writes (of the afflicted) that:
‘His clothes shall be rent – In the upper and fore parts, which were most visible. This was done partly as a token of sorrow, because though this was not a sin, yet it was an effect of sin, and a sore punishment, whereby he was cut off both from converse with men, and from the enjoyment of God in his ordinances; partly as a warning to others to keep at a due distance from him wheresoever he came.’ (‘Complete Bible Commentary’).
The afflicted were obliged to remain outside their community, until their infection was healed; confirmed as such by means of subsequent priestly examinations. Only when pronounced ‘tahor’ (‘clean’) were they re-admitted to the community.
‘Tzaraat’ was a disease of the body. Sin, of course, is a disease of the soul – one that can affect everyone; even those who have been baptised, and thus endowed with sanctifying grace. Sin, as you know, can result in exclusion from Heaven (the Community for which we were created).
As you know, the Catholic Church teaches that sin, committed after baptism, can be forgiven through the sacrament of reconciliation…through confession.
As it was necessary for victims of ‘tzaraat’ to present themselves for inspection by a priest of the Israelites (and how else could the priest have assessed their condition?); so must the sinner present himself to a priest of the Church; so that a sound, and just, assessment of their sin can be made.
The Bishops and priests of the Church have been empowered by Christ to ‘retain; or ‘remit’ sin. How can they exercise this function without knowledge? And how can they acquire knowledge without confession?
So yes, confession is necessary.
Answers to Specific Questions:
You mention the Didache, and ask if it refers to the ‘Penitential Rite at Mass’.
I don’t think so. Here’s why.
The following verses are taken from ‘The Didache: The Original Greek Text with Four English Translations’; Roberts-Donaldson’s translation:
‘In the church (ἐκκλησίᾳ) you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life.’ (4.14).
Compare:
‘You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light’ (Letter of Barnabas; A.D. 74).
To ‘acknowledge (our) transgressions’ is to confess them (see 14:1); whether privately or publicly, the verse doesn’t say. One may presume the latter; perhaps in preparation for collective worship on the Sunday.
And again:
‘But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.’ (14:1; my emphasis).
This verse speaks of both confession and public gathering (the latter, in order to ‘break bread’). Clearly, these are quite separate activities. Note that confession must come before the gathering itself and not during it; which indicates – it seems to me – that this act was intended to be a private, and secret, affair.
In A.D. 459, Pope St. Leo the Great wrote an epistle to all the Bishops through Campania. He writes:
‘With regard to penance, what is demanded of the faithful, is clearly not that an acknowledgement of the nature of individual sins written in a little book be read publicly, since it suffices that the states of consciences be made known to the priests alone in secret confession.
‘For that confession is sufficient, which is first offered to God, then also to a priest, who serves as an intercessor for the transgressions of the penitents. For then, indeed, more will be able to be incited to penance, if the conscience of the one confessing is not exposed to the ears of the people.’ (‘Magna Indign’; Denzinger 145).
Continued:
You ask: ‘Why were venial sins required to be confessed in the recent past, and not anymore?
Not so recent!
The confession of venial sins was declared unnecessary – but both permitted and useful – by the Council of Trent on the 25th November, 1551 (Denzinger 899). Unnecessary, because such sins can be expiated by other salutary means
Here is Article 899, in full (all emphases are mine):
‘From the institution of the sacrament of penance as already explained the universal Church has always understood that the complete confession of sins was also instituted by our Lord, (Jas. 5:16; I John 1:9; (Luke 17:14), and by divine law is necessary for all who have fallen after baptism (can. 7), because our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left behind Him priests as His own vicars (Matt. 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23), as rulers and judges, to whom all the mortal sins into which the faithful of Christ may have fallen should be brought, so that they in virtue of the power of the keys may pronounce the sentence of remission or retention of sins.
‘For it is evident that priests could not have exercised this judgment without a knowledge of the matter, nor could they indeed have observed justice in imposing penalties, if the faithful had declared their sins in general only, and not specifically and one by one.
‘From this it is gathered that all mortal sins of which they have knowledge after a careful self-examination must be enumerated in confession by the penitents, even though they are most secret and have been committed only against the two last precepts of the decalogue (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:28), sins which sometimes wound the soul more grievously, and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly.
‘For venial sins, by which we are not excluded from the grace of God and into which we fall more frequently, although they may rightly and profitably and without any presumption be declared in confession (can. 7), as the practice of pious persons indicates, may be passed over in silence without guilt and may be expiated by many other remedies. But since all mortal sins, even those of thought, make men children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) and enemies of God, it is necessary to ask pardon for all of them from God by an open and humble confession.
‘While, therefore, the faithful of Christ strive to confess all sins which occur to their memory, they undoubtedly lay all of them before the divine mercy to be forgiven (can. 7). While those who do otherwise and knowingly conceal certain sins, lay nothing before the divine bounty for forgiveness by the priest. For if one who is ill is ashamed to make known his wound to the physician does not remedy what he does not know.
‘Furthermore, it is gathered that those circumstances also must be explained in confession, which alter the species of the sin, (can. 7), because without them the sins themselves are neither honestly revealed by the penitents, nor are they known to the judges, and it would not be possible for them to judge rightly the gravity of the crimes and to impose the punishment which is proper to those penitents. Hence it is unreasonable to teach that these circumstances have been conjured up by idle men, or that one circumstance only must be confessed, namely to have sinned against a brother.’ (‘Denzinger – The Sources of Catholic Dogma’).
Father Dr. Ludwig Ott writes:
‘The Council of Trent defended against the reformers the practice of confessing venial sins. Pius VI adopted the teaching of the Council of Trent against the pseudo-Synod of Pistoja (1786), which desired to limit the so-called devotional confession, on the grounds of reverence for the Sacrament. D 1539. Pius XII, in the Encyclicals" Mystici Corporis" (1943) and" Mediator Dei" (1947), recommended the frequent reception of confession, calling it: "the pious practice of frequent confession, introduced by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost," and condemning the belittlement of frequent confession as: "an enterprise which is alien to the Spirit of Christ and most detrimental to the Mystical Body of our Saviour.”' (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’).
This is what Pope Pius XII wrote:
‘As you well know, venerable brethren, it is true that venial sins may be expiated in many ways that are to be highly commended. But to ensure more rapid progress day by day in the path of virtue, we will that the pious practice of frequent confession, which was introduced into the Church by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, should be earnestly advocated. By it genuine self-knowledge is increased, Christian humility grows, bad habits are corrected, spiritual neglect and tepidity are resisted, the conscience is purified, the will strengthened, a salutary self-control is attained, and grace is increased in virtue of the sacrament itself.’ (‘Mystici Corporis’; my emphasis).
In short, although not absolutely necessary, the confessing of venial sins is strongly recommended
May the Beloved bless you – and those you love – and keep you close to Himself.
Not so recent!
The confession of venial sins was declared unnecessary – but both permitted and useful – by the Council of Trent on the 25th November, 1551 (Denzinger 899). Unnecessary, because such sins can be expiated by other salutary means
Here is Article 899, in full (all emphases are mine):
‘From the institution of the sacrament of penance as already explained the universal Church has always understood that the complete confession of sins was also instituted by our Lord, (Jas. 5:16; I John 1:9; (Luke 17:14), and by divine law is necessary for all who have fallen after baptism (can. 7), because our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left behind Him priests as His own vicars (Matt. 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23), as rulers and judges, to whom all the mortal sins into which the faithful of Christ may have fallen should be brought, so that they in virtue of the power of the keys may pronounce the sentence of remission or retention of sins.
‘For it is evident that priests could not have exercised this judgment without a knowledge of the matter, nor could they indeed have observed justice in imposing penalties, if the faithful had declared their sins in general only, and not specifically and one by one.
‘From this it is gathered that all mortal sins of which they have knowledge after a careful self-examination must be enumerated in confession by the penitents, even though they are most secret and have been committed only against the two last precepts of the decalogue (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:28), sins which sometimes wound the soul more grievously, and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly.
‘For venial sins, by which we are not excluded from the grace of God and into which we fall more frequently, although they may rightly and profitably and without any presumption be declared in confession (can. 7), as the practice of pious persons indicates, may be passed over in silence without guilt and may be expiated by many other remedies. But since all mortal sins, even those of thought, make men children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) and enemies of God, it is necessary to ask pardon for all of them from God by an open and humble confession.
‘While, therefore, the faithful of Christ strive to confess all sins which occur to their memory, they undoubtedly lay all of them before the divine mercy to be forgiven (can. 7). While those who do otherwise and knowingly conceal certain sins, lay nothing before the divine bounty for forgiveness by the priest. For if one who is ill is ashamed to make known his wound to the physician does not remedy what he does not know.
‘Furthermore, it is gathered that those circumstances also must be explained in confession, which alter the species of the sin, (can. 7), because without them the sins themselves are neither honestly revealed by the penitents, nor are they known to the judges, and it would not be possible for them to judge rightly the gravity of the crimes and to impose the punishment which is proper to those penitents. Hence it is unreasonable to teach that these circumstances have been conjured up by idle men, or that one circumstance only must be confessed, namely to have sinned against a brother.’ (‘Denzinger – The Sources of Catholic Dogma’).
Father Dr. Ludwig Ott writes:
‘The Council of Trent defended against the reformers the practice of confessing venial sins. Pius VI adopted the teaching of the Council of Trent against the pseudo-Synod of Pistoja (1786), which desired to limit the so-called devotional confession, on the grounds of reverence for the Sacrament. D 1539. Pius XII, in the Encyclicals" Mystici Corporis" (1943) and" Mediator Dei" (1947), recommended the frequent reception of confession, calling it: "the pious practice of frequent confession, introduced by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost," and condemning the belittlement of frequent confession as: "an enterprise which is alien to the Spirit of Christ and most detrimental to the Mystical Body of our Saviour.”' (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’).
This is what Pope Pius XII wrote:
‘As you well know, venerable brethren, it is true that venial sins may be expiated in many ways that are to be highly commended. But to ensure more rapid progress day by day in the path of virtue, we will that the pious practice of frequent confession, which was introduced into the Church by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, should be earnestly advocated. By it genuine self-knowledge is increased, Christian humility grows, bad habits are corrected, spiritual neglect and tepidity are resisted, the conscience is purified, the will strengthened, a salutary self-control is attained, and grace is increased in virtue of the sacrament itself.’ (‘Mystici Corporis’; my emphasis).
In short, although not absolutely necessary, the confessing of venial sins is strongly recommended
May the Beloved bless you – and those you love – and keep you close to Himself.