Ariel (15 May 9:35 PM), you wrote:

“if I had to untangle and classify my motives in repentance in order to know I was forgiven, I'd really have a problem.”

Mon amie, one does not have to untangle or classify motives at all. You are making more out of all this than it is in practice. During an RC sacramental confession whatever one confesses is dealt with, whether the sin is mortal or venial and whether one’s contrition is perfect or imperfect. Discussion of categories of contrition doesn’t come up. I’ve never been in confession wherein the question of my contrition as perfect or imperfect ever came up. Typically, mention of whether one realizes their sin was grave matter and mortal doesn’t come up either, but could. A priest might mention that the matter of a sin is such that it would be mortal (given full consent and sufficient reflection of course) so that one realizes the seriousness and so one’s future efforts at repentance are strengthened. Typically the priest accepts that one’s presence in the confessional, the admission of sin, and the praying of the ‘act of contrition’ indicates sincerity (at least to an imperfect degree) which is sufficient for his giving absolution. What might get discussed may be ideas that will enable effective repentance in the days ahead. Sometimes the penance is discussed, though not frequently -- in my experience.

I think you are getting wrapped around the axle and anguishing too much about all of this. Neither God nor the RC church ask that one become a hair-splitting Philadelphia lawyer regarding confession and contrition. Both are concerned with one’s progress in being liberated from sin and its consequences / effects. The message of the OT is “he who misses Me harms himself.”

In some ways I think you go too deep and unnecessarily so. I kind of see these questions and others you have at times, as being unduly technical.

You surf the internet quite proficiently. Many others do as well, and there is really no need to understand all the details of the software code and language that enables the effective use of the internet. Similarly, one doesn’t need to become a canon lawyer to be holy and pleasing to the Lord, nor to benefit from the sacraments available to us. In practice, all this that you have qualms and heartburn about are typically non-issues in practice of living one’s faith.

Typically, in practice, most folk have one or two habitual weak areas that we know exist in us and we have to combat most particularly; and typically one knows when one has crossed the line from venial to mortal or from merely being tempted to venial. And the process of confessing is identical in any case. The hard part is the admission of the sins. Repenting subsequent to leaving the confessional can be a lifetime’s work as well and therefore – a ‘hard part’. In practice, many if not most folk find they have the same laundry list of sins throughout their lives. They can readily get discouraged at their own lack of progress.

Since the sacramental process is the same for both categories of sin and both categories of contrition, there is nothing to be concerned about. Confession obviates the need to have to untangle anything. It’s freeing. It’s ‘Magic Slate’. (Take it from one who has experience of it --- if you can).

As for knowing you are forgiven (per your statement). You know you are forgiven when you receive absolution. Christ (to our RC belief) gave the church authority to loose and to bind. As such when you are absolved you are absolved. Period.

You might consider it as a baseball game thing, perhaps. God has decided to work through umpires and their decisions, their calls. When they yell "Safe" you're safe. I say this in belief that one hasn't knowingly lied to the priest in confession.

Pop-pop

p.s. An IPA for Derek then, yes!

Hi Pop-pop---I'm having a few really busy days, and I'm sorry I haven't replied before. I do understand that in Confession you don't need to sort out which kinds of contrition you have. On the other thread, I was thinking of those times when Confession would not be available for several days unless a person called a priest for a special appointment.

Well, I am eager to highly recommend this marvelous Taylor Marshall podcast. Here he succinctly covers the basis for the Church's teachings on the Eucharist, which based on St. Paul's very own words. He does a superb job of handling some of the Protestant misunderstandings on this matter. I've listened to it twice now, and hear and experience more each time.


Join us as we examine the origin of the Eucharist in Old Testament typology. Saint Paul deeply understood this continuity and speaks of the Lord’s Supper and the “table of the Lord” with sacrificial language. We’ll also take a look at how the Council of Trent examined specific passages in the epistles of Paul with respect to transubstantiation and the Real Presence.


http://pauliscatholic.com/2009...and-transubstantion/

This podcast is free and can be easily downloaded via iTunes to your phone!
It is one among about a dozen of Marshall's podcast teachings, all very wonderful!

(You can thank Jacques for bringing this excellent teacher to our attention)