‘Still the reconciliation is not to be ascribed to the contrition apart from the desire for the sacrament which it includes.’
Apart from refuting you further, what does this quote achieve? It clearly opposes your earlier position.
Why did the Catechism see fit to discriminate between perfect contrition with and without intent? Unless one is determined to go to confession as soon as possible, perfect condition does nothing for his soul, apart from perhaps granting facilitating grace.
The Catholic Church does teach, because of our tendancy to sin (because of original sin), that perfect contrition is difficult to obtain, and if perfect contrition is made; mortal sins should still be mentioned during one’s next confession, (unless after the perfect contrition the person dies without getting to confession).
Now, now. Fair is fair. Perfect contrition with the intent to go to Confession at the soonest possible opportunity DOES render the penitent forgiven. This takes care of the penitent in case of death.
It does NOT render the penitent free to receive Communion, or release him from the obligation to confess, and we’re both clear on that.
Yes ++1 to this. Confession is necessary for all Catholics who fall into mortal sin, for as long as it is not impossible to obtain. This includes those who HAVE been forgiven by perfect contrition, because while they are FORGIVEN, they are not ABSOLVED. One can only receive Communion after having been ABSOLVED.
He is not always invincibly ignorant. If he is, as I said previously, it may be sufficient.
This thread is neither on King David, nor Protestants. It’s on practising Catholics.
Now you’ve directly contradicted yourself. You failed to make this cleat despite having the Catechism quoted in your face for at least five posts. Writing ‘again’ in capitals about something you’ve never said before won’t help.
Aye, see the issue is what language we’re speaking. What context. It all started in the framework of going to Hell — not a technical definition of “absolution.”
For you seem to be affirming IFP’s rejection of what I said, which is curious, since I agree with the words you wrote here in affirmation of his post. Curious. I think this entire thread has become redundant.
Oh I agree completely. The statement I was saying was false did not include, at least explicitly, the caveat we have been insisting on, however. It was:
Now, if this is referring to a person with perfect contrition who intends on going to confession as soon as possible, but dies before, the statement is true. If it refers to a person who has perfect contrition, but does not intend to go to confession as soon as possible, and he dies at a time before he goes to confession, it is not.
Say person x, who is in mortal sin and has perfect contrition, knows there is a confession slot available, but he deliberately forsakes it for the one next week. He dies
but is not automatically forgiven. The post was not clear on the distinction. Hence my statement.
Confession is a gift that God has given to us. It is the ordinary means for a Christian to restore Communion with God and the Church when we have cut ourselves off, but God’s mercy is not bound by the gifts that he has already given; he is free to give more.
Moral impossibility is a wide “loophole” and only God knows what barriers might exist to a person approaching the sacrament.
The idea that a person who dies in the confessional, before having received Absolution, cannot reasonably hope for God’s mercy is absurd.
I’m pretty sure that I’m not qualified to state what God can or cannot do. I wouldn’t want to risk my soul on the assumption that God will make an exception for my own circumstances, but I also do not presume to tell others that God cannot do something.
How do you (or I) know how rare or common perfect contrition might be? Is this the teaching of the Church, the opinion of theologians, or your own opinion?
Exactly, @babochka, which gets at my point for posting in this thread, in the first place: the danger of legalistic tendencies and why it’s wrong to place God’s mercy in a box. Neither you nor I are ignoring Catholic teaching, nor are we rejecting the Sacrament of Confession as the ordinary means Christ established to convey to us his mercy.
We are simply wanting people to take a step back and think of God’s mercy as the greater context, not a specific ritual that took centuries to develop. (Again, Confession goes back to Christ, but it was not practiced in the same way. That’s why it’s odd to speak of “intent to go to Confession” as part of Perfect Contrition’s requirement if you mean an explicit intent on the explicit ritual, for the Jews didn’t have this, nor did the earliest Christians – in which the sacrament was formally very different).
Okay. Thank you for clarifying. You are passing along the opinion of some priests that you have heard and you concur with that opinion.
As far as I can tell, the Church does not have a teaching regarding this, other than the fact that the Council of Trent mentioned that perfect contrition is “difficult”. With God’s Grace, of course, we can do difficult things.
I don’t really have an opinion as to how common perfect contrition might be, I just wanted to know if there was an official teaching that it was rare.