Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

What are the moral guidelines in regards to accepting another's apologies? I understand forgiving 7 x 70; however, trust. If it is legitimately an issue, can we be obligated to believe and be compelled to accept an apology?

We have to accept a sincere apology; we don't have to take the person back into the former confidence that we had with them, before the offense was committed.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on January 20, 2023, 08:21:05 PMWe have to accept a sincere apology; we don't have to take the person back into the former confidence that we had with them, before the offense was committed.

I did not know that.  That's a relief.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on January 20, 2023, 08:21:05 PMWe have to accept a sincere apology; we don't have to take the person back into the former confidence that we had with them, before the offense was committed.

And how does one know it is "sincere"?

One cannot be 100% certain; but if they admit to the wrong that they did; and they make a real attempt to make things right again. One can be at least morally certain. Also if they avoid giving offense again.

Quote from: Baylee on January 21, 2023, 08:06:51 AM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on January 20, 2023, 08:21:05 PMWe have to accept a sincere apology; we don't have to take the person back into the former confidence that we had with them, before the offense was committed.

And how does one know it is "sincere"?

A Catholic must assume it is sincere and not question legitimacy, motives, etc. because we cannot read the hearts of others.  That said, we also cannot delete our natures, including our memories and experiences, which is why Michael said what he said.  A day, week, year, or lifetime of injuries by the other can affect the level of enthusiasm by which we re-establish a relationship or agree to.

IOW, self-defense works both ways:  The apologizer, depending on his or her level of regret, humility, and facility communicating all of that, might fall short on his or her own degree of expressed remorse.  (He may feel it to a far greater degree than he is able to express it.)  Perhaps he made a great sacramental confession about it, but his apology to the offended one outside of the confessional does not come close. 

Second direction:  We may interiorly, spiritually, fully accept the apology, but the reality of a fractured relationship remains.  (I think a good example is what can happen in a marriage during a particular phase or even after a significant argument; the repair may be at first imperfect and gradual rather than instant like supernatural grace.)

I have a situation right now in my life that corresponds to what Michael's post said.  She was such a spiritually and emotionally intimate friend of mine, yet suddenly --for reasons probably not having to do with me but with situations surrounding her previous friendship with me-- abandoned me and stopped all communication.  Recently, she sent me what I consider to be a patronizing message to kind of "cover" for her silence.  I was even further offended; I wished that she had continued the silence.

Were she to want to resume a regular friendship with me, I would agree to -- even outside of any apology on her part.  With or without an apology, though, I would regard her friendship tentatively and the level of intimacy, at least initially, would hardly be what it was before.

There have been many situations in my life when an apology was much more demonstrated than verbalized.  I.m.o., these are the best apologies, and I would never, ever demand that anyone verbally apologize to me for an offense instead of showing me regret.  First of all, regret that is acted on is obviously a sign of genuine self-awareness and self-accusation.  Second, many people do not apologize well.  They may be far more ashamed than they can find the words for, etc.  They may not be very good with words, etc.

If they bow down and kiss my feet I tend to do it.

But sincere apologies are very rare.

I find most people who say sorry are not sorry.

Is accepting an apology the same as forgiving?  And what does it mean to accept an apology other than politely acknowledging it?

Back in the day, the advice was always to 'forgive and forget,  as I remember.  But this always based on the perpetrator changing their behaviour.    'Say you're sorry and promise not to do whatever it was again' was always the prerequisite to 'forgiving and forgetting'.  And I thought that when God forgives, He also forgets, so when a sin is confessed and penance is complete, God forgets the sin.

But if the  person is insincere and just wants to be let off the hook, what then?  I wouldn't refuse to politely acknowledge an apology, because there's a chance it could be sincere.  The way to tell is if the person continues with the behaviour that caused the harm and makes no attempt to change it.  If a psychopath apologises, you can be certain that the apology is not sincere because psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists never change.  They see no reason to.

So I think that accepting an apology is not necessarily the same as forgiveness. Forgiveness takes time and needs some kind of indication that the person involved is sorry enough to attempt to amend the behaviour which caused the offence. 

 

You say that psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists never change. Can you expand on this? Maybe that is the character of the person I am dealing with. I would think that God's Grace could penetrate the most hardened hearts.

Quote from: Heinrich on January 28, 2023, 03:37:44 PMYou say that psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists never change. Can you expand on this? Maybe that is the character of the person I am dealing with. I would think that God's Grace could penetrate the most hardened hearts.

But God's doesn't force His Grace onto anyone and there are people who wilfully refuse it.  They choose malice because they like it.  It makes them feel powerful and they enjoy the distress they cause in others.  Studies have shown that observing the suffering of human beings gives some people a dopamine hit, suggesting that they take pleasure in the spectacle.

A lot of what passes for 'forgiveness' these days is mostly about letting psychopaths and other Cluster Bs off the hook.  If you think you may be dealing with someone who has malicious traits then there's a ton of information about this online.  Just go to Youtube.

But what are you picking up from this person, generally speaking?  A pattern of behaviour that repeats over time?  Does this person lie without blinking, stir up trouble behind your back, treat you as a resource to be used, point out your faults non-stop, undermine you at every opportunity especially in public, steal without thinking twice, put on one face in public and a very different face in private etc etc.

If you think you may be dealing with such a person, and are wondering whether to accept their apology, then maybe you should look into it.  One of the essential characteristics of people with Cluster B personality disorders psychopaths, narcissists, histrionics and borderlines - is that they cannot be treated because they're not mentally ill.  They have personality disorders!! 

It seems that neither God nor modern psychiatry can penetrate a truly hardened heart.

Quote from: Greg on January 28, 2023, 08:39:30 AMIf they bow down and kiss my feet I tend to do it.

But sincere apologies are very rare.

I find most people who say sorry are not sorry.

Yes. You can usually tell those people because they say "I'm sorry YOU FEEL that way." This implies that the problem is not their behavior, but your feelings.

If I hear an apology like this, which has happened twice, I say to the person you cannot apologise for my feelings, they are not yours to apologise for but you can apologise for your own actions which caused me to feel this way.  Oh the squirming and word play that follows is actually quite amusing especially with a narcissist.

I have found over time that one of the best remedies for a problem with a person who is troublesome, is to pray for their conversion and salvation. It helps to alleviate the harm and bother that they cause us, and at times it helps to reconcile them or even get them out of one's life.

According to Luke 17:3 -

QuoteTake heed to yourselves. If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him: and if he do penance, forgive him.

Modern ideas about forgiveness prefer to omit the necessity of penance.  Forgiveness should be unconditional, people insist.  The duty to forgive is emphasised while the necessity of penance is ignored, especially from the NO pulpit. 

Penance implies contrition, a desire to change the troublesome behaviours, and the willingness to satisfy the demands of Divine Justice.  In a narcissistic age like this, such concepts are alien, hence the demands for unconditional forgiveness and the accusations of a lack of charity on the part of those who won't comply.

My father always said that apologies are not qualified.  In other words, when you say you're sorry, it's "I'm sorry".  Not "I'm sorry, but.....".

Quote from: Michael Wilson on January 29, 2023, 11:20:22 AMI have found over time that one of the best remedies for a problem with a person who is troublesome, is to pray for their conversion and salvation. It helps to alleviate the harm and bother that they cause us, and at times it helps to reconcile them or even get them out of one's life.

This... I have found that it helps to soothe my soul a great deal.  Edited to add: especially when I can't change their behaviour

If the culprit apologizes, we accept as a matter of mercy and charity in the moment and let it go at that. (If this frees the person to consider that the infraction was as much against God as it was against us, all the better for that person's soul.) Accepting an apology entails neither an outpouring of unwarranted trust nor an offer of renewed friendship. Unless it's a case of familial authority, we don't owe them anything more. It just wipes the balance with regard to the other person, and it self-checks the sin of pride in insisting that we need to litigate wrongs against us until we're finally satisfied. Humanist-modernists talk about "boundaries" but that avoids the bigger spiritual issue.

Forgiveness isn't a social transaction, it's something we owe to God. Forgiveness means that we avow to forego personal vengeance. (Vengeance is distinct from justice, but that's another conversation.) It also means that we refuse to consent to wishful malice when those thoughts surely pop up. Again, it's not about the other person, it's about setting ourselves on the right path no matter what nonsense we encounter from day to day.

PS: If the above doesn't convince, then consider that refusing to accept an apology can be an open invitation to whichever demons had been plaguing the apologizer. Where does that put you now?

Quote from: Instaurare omnia on January 31, 2023, 01:25:23 PMAccepting an apology entails neither an outpouring of unwarranted trust nor an offer of renewed friendship.

Does accepting an apology entail forgiveness though?  It seems not necessarily, if I'm reading this thread properly.

The general opinion here is that accepting an apology equates with forgiveness but thataccepting the apology doesn't mean you have  to renew friendship or forget the offence.  In fact it's been posted above that we must forgive but that doesn't mean we have to forget or trust the person again.

Sorry, but I don't think that's forgiveness.  God forgives and forgets when the necessary obligations have been met.  Accepting an apology is mere politeness if the intention to forget is not there.

St Luke is quite clear.  If the offender has done penance, you forgive them, and that must include forgetting or it's not forgiveness.  If you truly have forgiven, then surely you must forget.  Otherwise it's merely accepting an apology which is just  polite. 

Obviously the penance will depend on what the person has done.  Did they eat the last cake that you were looking forward to , or did they steal your savings?

Quotefrom awkward customer: Does accepting an apology entail forgiveness though?  It seems not necessarily, if I'm reading this thread properly. [...] God forgives and forgets when the necessary obligations have been met.  Accepting an apology is mere politeness if the intention to forget is not there.

Two separate matters/actions. Accepting the apology speaks to the other person as a creature of God, not so much to what they did. (If people do so out of "politeness" then that's guile and possible fodder reserved for future ill will.) Same to say out loud, "I forgive you." If spoken honestly, then in that moment there must be some genuine intent at least to begin to forgive.

Yet the interaction between forgiving and forgetting is tricky. We're human, so it's inherently difficult to forget. Demons take advantage of this weakness, but they only win if we willfully persist in resentment, ruminating, grudges, etc., albeit silent and never expressed or acted upon. So we take care to shut it down as soon as we catch ourselves indulging. It takes time and prayer, including asking God to purify our memories. It's not good if we forget what happened but still retain a vague hatred for that person. (Conversely, accurate recall with no trace of resentment wouldn't be a bad thing necessarily.) When we truly forgive, it's before God, not before the person forgiven. (NB: those lines in the Pater Noster.)
 
According to Fr. Ripperger, God doesn't "forget", but repentance means that He won't hold it against us. (Source: @12:35 in the video that Julio posted in General Catholic Discussion this afternoon.) As for the wrongdoer's Penance, that's up to a priest and none of our business, nor does it seem that we can expect restitution as a condition of forgiveness.

QuoteUntil the time of the Reformation no theologian ever thought of denying the necessity of contrition for the forgiveness of sin. But with the coming of Luther and his doctrine of justification by faith alone the absolute necessity of contrition was excluded as by a natural consequence...... Catholic writers have always taught the necessity of contrition for the forgiveness of sin, and they have insisted that such necessity arises (a) from the very nature of repentance as well as (b) from the positive command of God. (a) 'They point out that the sentence of Christ in Luke, xiii, 5, is final: "Except you do penance", etc., and from the Fathers they cite passages such as the following from Cyprian, "De Lapsis", no. 32: "Do penance in full, give proof of the sorrow that comes from a grieving and lamenting soul. . . they who do away with repentance for sin, close the door to satisfaction."

https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=3324

Is Protestantism the source of the confusion between accepting an apology and forgiveness, I wonder?

Because merely accepting an apology is not forgiveness.

If someone apologises and obviously has no remorse or intention of changing then by all means accept their apology.  But this has nothing to do with forgiveness.

Conflating the two and demanding forgiveness simply because someone has apologised doesn't correspond to any Catholic teaching I am familiar with.

^^^ Yes, it's the Church that demands contrition for sacramental forgiveness of sin. It's not you or I demanding contrition in a material sense or out of some temporal idea of correct manners. Big difference. I don't think that Protestantism is responsible for the confusion, except in those places where Catholics are so surrounded by Prots that it contaminates our outlook. Rather, it's simple human pride to forget that all our thoughts and actions are answerable to God. People can bicker all they want about mundane offenses, but that's being worldly. Note too that we can forgive someone we have no chance of ever meeting again (including someone who's no longer alive) even though that person never apologized and never made amends. 

Yes.  The Church demands contrition for sacramental forgiveness of sins.  But we shouldn't?  And I'm not talking about trivial offences here, but about more serious and likely long-term harm caused by one individual to another. 

The overwhelming demand today is for unconditional forgiveness.  It doesn't matter what someone has done or whether or not they are sorry or have even acknowledged responsibility for what they did.  The victim is always required to forgive, thereby placing an additional burden on them that they do not deserve.

I'm sorry but I think there's confusion in terms which are very common today and, yes, the Protestant Revolt has helped bring this about.  If the person responsible for the offence will not take responsibility for what they have done and displays no contrition or remorse, then letting go of the offence and praying for the person's repentance is about as good as it gets.

A psychopath who apologises is lying. 

^^^ We can only demand temporal justice, but then it gets into a civil matter, not a religious one. Then it gets into a whole pile of liberal-masonic premises about right and wrong that I have no patience for anymore. So it doesn't interest me to go there in this thread, except to say that secularly imposed "unconditional forgiveness" is bogus and a sugar-coated concession to evil, and what the Protestant Reformation really enabled was modernist relativism that has no place in good old rigid restorationist Catholicism. Let other people be confused if they want to. I can't fix them. And I don't hold my breath that statist "jurisprudence" will ensure justice of any sort either.

Let God take care of the lying psychopaths in God's own time. I've forgiven enough of them in my interior being because I don't want that long-ago baggage dragging me down anymore. They'll never know I've forgiven them because I burnt those bridges. Even the few I still put up with at a distance don't need to know the state of my soul. That's between me and God.

We have a duty to forgive others who have offended us, we even condition God's own forgiveness of our sins on the degree that we forgive others (Our Father) and Our Lord told us that the measure that we use on others, will be used on us. Forgetting, doesn't mean getting amnesia as to the offense, but not holding the offense as unforgiven i.e. As an "active file" between the offender and the offendee. 

^^Yes the holding of the grudge is never peaceful. I agree that it is our duty to forgive. In fact even them not asking for forgiveness we ought to forgive their sins being sinners like them. It is only God to whom begging for forgiveness is necessary because He is pure with very simple constitution of love as giver.

It does not mean however that forgiving must be expressly shown for we need prudence for the sinner like us must feel the consequence of the wrongful act, otherwise we become culpable of acceding towards that demeanor of sinfulness. But to forgive to my understanding of which is an obligation of every sinner having carried with us our fallen nature. It is certainly hard but can be done.

What if God doesn't forgive the person?

God requires contrition and penance before He forgives. But we have to forgive unconditionally?  We have to forgive someone who has caused us harm even if they don't ask to be forgiven and show no remorse for what they have done?   

Since this contradiction is too much for my brain to understand, I think I will stick with 'letting go'. Pray for the person, have faith that God will deal with the person and walk away with the determination to 'let go' of anger, resentment and any desire for revenge.  Not to be confused with forgiveness.

mistake

Quote from: awkward customer on February 02, 2023, 03:31:14 AMWhat if God doesn't forgive the person?

God requires contrition and penance before He forgives. But we have to forgive unconditionally?  We have to forgive someone who has caused us harm even if they don't ask to be forgiven and show no remorse for what they have done?   

Since this contradiction is too much for my brain to understand, I think I will stick with 'letting go'. Pray for the person, have faith that God will deal with the person and walk away with the determination to 'let go' of anger, resentment and any desire for revenge.  Not to be confused with forgiveness.

What if one has no longing for revenge or even justice but can't let go with what was done to them? I guess offer up, which is my go to for when I don't know.

Quote from: diaduit on February 02, 2023, 03:49:56 AMWhat if one has no longing for revenge or even justice but can't let go with what was done to them? I guess offer up, which is my go to for when I don't know.

I'm not sure why anyone is under any obligation to 'let go' of the distress caused by what was done to them.  Letting go of the desire for revenge or even justice is certainly desirable but this is easy compared to letting go of the personal devastation that abusive behaviour can cause.

When I've been in this position, when all else has failed including endless prayer and 'offering it up', I've turned to God and Our Lady, our Heavenly Father and Mother, admitted to them that the distress, anger, despair at what was done to me won't go away, in the hope of receiving the consolation and support that good parents would offer to a child in that position.  This has involved some childish behaviours on my part, I must admit.  It's almost as if I'm exposing myself completely to God, warts and all, which He already knows about anyway.  And I've experienced great consolation at such times.

I think there's a quite modern distaste for strong emotions and a tendency to swallow deep distress and cover it up by any means.  My own experience is that since trusting God and Our Lady enough to show them  the level of my distress in all its less than admirable manifestations, I have never felt closer to Them.

Don't be afraid of being a frightened and bewildered child in the presence of God your Father. And especially not in the Presence of Our Lady your Mother.  They will understand.

   

I stated begging for forgiveness is necessary before one can be forgiven by God. Jesus showed that while He was crucified when Dimas asked for that forgiveness. However, the omnipotence of God was also manifested when He stated, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." On the context however of the OP on "accepting apology," a sinner needs to pray to attain forgiveness thus the truth of asking it from God. Whether or not God shall forgive the person is up to Him. No one can dictate to God what He must do, but we can certainly pray to Him.

We need to purify our soul the way St. Francis of Assisi did it. Even the Angels were confused of who he was because he was able to express that loving ways of God by being forgiving. When Jesus said, "be perfect" it means it can be done and it is doable because of His grace and not because of our sheer ability for we are incapable of saving our soul on our own.

If they genuinely did not know what they were doing then they would not be culpable for their sin.

Just as a mentally handicapped person would not be guilty of pulling a trigger on a gun.

Pretty sure that Pontius Pilate, the Jewish priests and the Romans who nailed Jesus to the cross knew that they were doing a barbaric act on an innocent man.

Pretty sure that all those miracles Jesus worked should have convinced the Jewish high-priests that Jesus was no ordinary man.

Judas certainly knew what he was doing.

^^It is hard to judge regarding the Roman soldiers because we know what happened to St. Longinus who proclaimed Jesus as God after piercing the side of His body. The love of God is expressed in different ways to each of the person. The Parable of Workers in Vineyard is instructive of this hope towards the grace of God. While it is true that we see those who nailed Him as cruel people but we do not know how Jesus expressed that love and/or justice thereafter much as the same was not stated in the Holy Bible.

Demons attach to unforgiveness. 
But at the same time, we were never told we had to trust anyone, besides God.

Our Lord in Matt. 18:

Quote
 [21] Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? [22] Jesus saith to him: I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times.

Haydock Commentary:

QuoteVer. 21. S. Peter knew the Jews to be much given to revenge; he therefore thought it a great proof of superior virtue to be able to forgive seven times. It was for this reason he proposed this question to our Lord; who, to shew how much he esteemed charity, immediately answered, not only seven times, but seventy times seven times. He does not mean to say that this number must be the bounds of our forgiving; we must forgive to the end, and never take revenge, however often our brother offend against us. There must be no end of forgiving poor culprits that sincerely repent, either in the sacrament of penance, or one man another his offences. B. — To recommend this great virtue more forcibly, he subjoins the parable of the king taking his accounts: and, from the great severity there exercised, he intimates how rigid will his heavenly Father be to those who forgive not their enemies. Dion. Carth.

How many times we must forgive those who offend us if they repent:

QuoteVer. 22. Till seventy times seven; i.e. 490 times; but it is put by way of an unlimited number, to signify we must pardon private injuries, though even so often done to us. Wi. — When our brother sins against us, we must grieve for his sake over the evil he has committed; but for ourselves we ought greatly to rejoice, because we are thereby made like our heavenly Father, who bids the sun to shine upon the good and the bad. But if the thought of having to imitate God alarm us, though it should not seem difficult to a true lover of God, let us place before our eyes the examples of his favourite servants. Let us imitate Joseph, who though reduced to a state of the most abject servitude, by the hatred of his unnatural brethren, yet in the affliction of his heart, employed all his power to succour them in their afflictions. Let us imitate Moses, who after a thousand injuries, raised his fervent supplications in behalf of his people. Let us imitate the blessed Paul, who, though daily suffering a thousand afflictions from the Jews, still wished to become an anathema for their salvation. Let us imitate Stephen, who, when the stones of his persecutors were covering him with wounds, prayed that the Almighty would pardon their sin. Let us follow these admirable examples, then shall we extinguish the flames of anger, then will our heavenly Father grant us the forgiveness of our sins, through the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ. S. Chrys. hom. lxii.

Which Our Lord then followed with the parable of the "wicked servant, whom the king (Our Lord) forgave the debt of ten thousand talents of silver i.e. Our sins. The wicked servant in turn refused to forgive a fellow servant for the trifling amount that this fellow owed him.
On the wicked servant:

QuoteVer. 35. So also shall my heavenly Father do to you. In this parable the master is said to have remitted the debt, and yet afterwards to have punished the servant for it. God doth not in this manner with us. But we may here observe, once for all, that in parables, diverse things are only ornamental to the parable itself; and a caution and restriction is to be used in applying them. Wi. — Not that God will revoke a pardon once granted; for this would be contrary to his infinite mercy, and his works are without repentance. It means that God will not pardon, or rather that he will severely punish the ingratitude and inhumanity of the man, who, after having received from God the most liberal pardon of his grievous transgressions, refuses to forgive the slightest offence committed against him by his neighbour, who is a member, nay a son of his God. This ingratitude may justly be compared with the 10,000 talents, as every grievous offence committed against God, exceeds, in an infinite degree, any offence against man. T. — This forgiveness must be real, not pretended; from the heart, and not in word and appearance only; sacrificing all desire of revenge, all anger, hatred and resentment, at the shrine of charity.

Its not easy to follow Our Lord, and not our too human and natural inclinations; but with prayer and God's grace, we can "do violence" to ourselves, and forgive those who offend us.

Father Gabriel Amorth, a famous exorcist, stated that one of the ways that a person makes themselves open to diabolic possession, is to refuse to forgive those who have offended them.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on February 03, 2023, 04:01:20 PMFather Gabriel Amorth, a famous exorcist, stated that one of the ways that a person makes themselves open to diabolic possession, is to refuse to forgive those who have offended them.

Wow.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on February 03, 2023, 04:01:20 PMFather Gabriel Amorth, a famous exorcist, stated that one of the ways that a person makes themselves open to diabolic possession, is to refuse to forgive those who have offended them.

Indeed, because according also to the seminars that were conducted by Fr. Chad Ripperger who is also an exorcists, our mental condition which involves our emotions and perceptions can be exploited by the demon. That being the case, the inability to forgive carries with it the negative emotion towards the person who caused that offense and that matter creates that window to manifest the diabolic in the mind of the person even to anyone who is frequent in going to the Church.

Although, piousness is not at all an exemption from demonic possession because God my test a faithful and could will that. Us is His own anyway.

QuoteBut if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

According to Matt 18:15-17, if someone offends you and will not "hear" you, or your witnesses, or the Church, then you are to treat the offender as "the heathen and publican".

But what about forgiveness?  It doesn't apply if someone will not "hear" you.

When suggesting that those who don't forgive are opening themselves to the demonic, it really helps to specify that those who refuse to show remorse, apologise, make restitution for grave offenses are not candidates for forgiveness.

When people take the trouble to make this distinction, as Michael Wilson did in one post above, it really helps avoid re-traumatising people who have suffered abuse of any kind from someone who has no remorse at all.

Please try to avoid putting an additional and entirely unnecessary burden on people who already have enough to deal with.  Being told that they must forgive an abuser who has zero remorse or they will open themselves to the demonic, could easily tip a vulnerable person over the edge. 

To my understanding of forgiveness it need not be communicated to the sinner. So even if the one who offended you won't hear you, the act of forgiving can be done ergo, freeing thyself from the wounds of it. One who is treated a heathen or a publican does not mean they cannot be forgiven. Carrying that wound caused by the trauma is not good for the soul to my humble understanding. The trauma itself should be removed from ones will and to be free from it is to forgive.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on February 03, 2023, 04:01:20 PMFather Gabriel Amorth, a famous exorcist, stated that one of the ways that a person makes themselves open to diabolic possession, is to refuse to forgive those who have offended them.

He also stated a load of utter bollocks.  Never took that clown seriously myself.

Did he say the new mass?

Quote from: Greg on February 04, 2023, 07:57:13 AM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on February 03, 2023, 04:01:20 PMFather Gabriel Amorth, a famous exorcist, stated that one of the ways that a person makes themselves open to diabolic possession, is to refuse to forgive those who have offended them.

He also stated a load of utter bollocks.  Never took that clown seriously myself.

Did he say the new mass?

I saw a documentary about him one time. He openly mocked a demon that was inside a woman. Seems a little Benny Hinn like to me.

What of the case of someone who wont ask forgiveness or be reconciled with us? Is it necessary to continue to attempt to reconcile, or treat with this person? What if they are rude to us, each time we meet them? We are not obliged to continue to deal with these people. But it is highly advisable not to carry a grudge and to pray for their conversion so that if they do not repent their refusal will demonstrate their bad faith and call down chastisement from God's justice upon themselves.
Romans 12.

Quote[18] If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men. [19] Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. [20] But if thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on February 04, 2023, 09:26:52 AMWhat of the case of someone who wont ask forgiveness or be reconciled with us? Is it necessary to continue to attempt to reconcile, or treat with this person? What if they are rude to us, each time we meet them? We are not obliged to continue to deal with these people. But it is highly advisable not to carry a grudge and to pray for their conversion so that if they do not repent their refusal will demonstrate their bad faith and call down chastisement from God's justice upon themselves.
Romans 12.

Quote[18] If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men. [19] Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. [20] But if thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.

Exactly.  Pray for the person, dispel your anger and desire for revenge and let go. 

And if they're hungry, of course give them food. You can't let them starve. After all, you would give food to a hungry tax collector or publican, and that is how we are to treat the kind of unrepentant offender you describe in your post.

But this is not forgiveness.  It is shaking the dust off your feet and walking away from someone  who has caused you harm and 'won't hear you'.  Forgiveness requires remorse from the offender and the desire to make restitution for any harm done. 

I think there's confusion on this issue.  Forgiveness has become a demand accompanied by threats, and it's the victims not the perpetrators who are having this inversion directed at them.  I'm sure that the more traditional view is that forgiveness depends on the willingness of the offender to repent and can't be expected of the victim without it..

As a victim of severe childhood multi-perpetrator assaults, let me say that it has been a long difficult process to forgive them. It has only been by the grace of God that I have been able to do so. Having said that, for the safety of familiy members, none of us have anything to do with any of the perpetrators, nor anyone who associates with them. To do so would be dangerous. Forgiveness is not something we do for the well-being of the other person; it is something we do to please God, to break the bond that would continue to tie us to the perps, and for our own well-being. Is my process complete? haha No. I am still a work in process. But every time the enemy attacks, I flee to Our Lord and Our Lady and my Guardian Angel for protection. And offer my suffering to God, which glorifies God and puts the enemy to shame.

Quote from: TradGranny on February 04, 2023, 04:05:39 PMAs a victim of severe childhood multi-perpetrator assaults, let me say that it has been a long difficult process to forgive them. It has only been by the grace of God that I have been able to do so. Having said that, for the safety of familiy members, none of us have anything to do with any of the perpetrators, nor anyone who associates with them. To do so would be dangerous. Forgiveness is not something we do for the well-being of the other person; it is something we do to please God, to break the bond that would continue to tie us to the perps, and for our own well-being. Is my process complete? haha No. I am still a work in process. But every time the enemy attacks, I flee to Our Lord and Our Lady and my Guardian Angel for protection. And offer my suffering to God, which glorifies God and puts the enemy to shame.

Awesome post and much food for thought.

Quote1. We are not called to go beyond what God himself does when it comes to forgiveness. Many Christians believe .... that they are obliged to forgive even those who are not in the least bit sorry for their offenses. And on the surface this sounds really . . . Christian. But is it true? God himself doesn't do it. He forgives only those who repent of their sins. 2 Corinthians 7:10 says, "Godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation." 1 John 1:9 says, "If we confess our sins, he . . . will forgive our sins."

Our Lord obviously has not forgiven and will not forgive the souls in hell right now for the simple reason that they did not ask for forgiveness. This seems as clear as clear can be.

The question is, are we required to do more than God does when it comes to forgiveness? Jesus seems to answer for us in Luke 17:3-4:

If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, "I repent," you must forgive him.

According to this text, and as we would suspect, Jesus requires his followers to forgive only those who are sorry for their offenses, just as God does. And this only make sense. Colossians 3:13 says we are to called to forgive each other "as the Lord has forgiven [us]."

Some will say at this point, "Didn't Jesus forgive everyone from the cross when he said, 'Forgive them, for they know not what they do' in Luke 23:34?" Actually, he didn't. He petitioned the Father for those who had beaten and crucified him to be forgiven, revealing his will that "all men . . . be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4). But this was not a declaration that even these men were actually forgiven, much less a declaration that he was forgiving everyone for all time.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/to-forgive-or-not-to-forgive-that-is-the-question

The prayer taught to us directly from Jesus Christ says "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

I am a sinner. I make frequent confessions and try to do better. I trust that my sins are forgiven in that sacrament and I make offerings to Our Lord for my past sins. Our Catholic Faith teaches us that we are made acceptable to the Father by the Bloody Sacrifice of Our Savior Jesus Christ on the cross.

But if I fail to do what I am specifically asked to do in the Our Father prayer, how can I expect to be forgiven myself?

Quote from: TradGranny on February 04, 2023, 04:05:39 PMAs a victim of severe childhood multi-perpetrator assaults, let me say that it has been a long difficult process to forgive them. It has only been by the grace of God that I have been able to do so. Having said that, for the safety of familiy members, none of us have anything to do with any of the perpetrators, nor anyone who associates with them. To do so would be dangerous. Forgiveness is not something we do for the well-being of the other person; it is something we do to please God, to break the bond that would continue to tie us to the perps, and for our own well-being. Is my process complete? haha No. I am still a work in process. But every time the enemy attacks, I flee to Our Lord and Our Lady and my Guardian Angel for protection. And offer my suffering to God, which glorifies God and puts the enemy to shame.

This is what I mean by we must forgive anyone who offend us even if they do not hear us. That is not to communicate to them but to comply with this command of God:

If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions. (Matthew 6:14&15)

God bless and thank you for sharing this with us.

Quote from: TradGranny on February 05, 2023, 04:59:48 PMThe prayer taught to us directly from Jesus Christ says "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

I am a sinner. I make frequent confessions and try to do better. I trust that my sins are forgiven in that sacrament and I make offerings to Our Lord for my past sins. Our Catholic Faith teaches us that we are made acceptable to the Father by the Bloody Sacrifice of Our Savior Jesus Christ on the cross.

But if I fail to do what I am specifically asked to do in the Our Father prayer, how can I expect to be forgiven myself?

Indeed, and you are so blessed for that goodness that God endowed in your intellect.

It is nonsense to suggest that while God demands repentance in order to forgive, we have to forgive the unrepentant.

I don't know where you people are getting your ideas from, but you have set standards for forgiveness that God has not.

Do you agree that God sends unrepentant fraudsters and murderers to Hell? Yes?

Then why do you insist that we must forgive such a person?

 

Quote from: Julio on February 05, 2023, 06:08:18 PMThis is what I mean by we must forgive anyone who offend us even if they do not hear us. That is not to communicate to them but to comply with this command of God:

Nonsense.  God does not forgive the unrepentant.  If He did, Hell would be empty.  Is Hell empty?  No.  Who is in Hell?  The unrepentant.

Your version of forgiveness only works if you re-write Matthew 18, which clearly states that we are to treat those who won't 'hear us' - the unrepentant - as publicans and tax collectors. 

Are you really saying that you know better than Matthew 18?

Quote from: TradGranny on February 05, 2023, 04:59:48 PMBut if I fail to do what I am specifically asked to do in the Our Father prayer, how can I expect to be forgiven myself?

In the Our Father you are asking God to forgive you.  In order for God to forgive you, you have to repent. 

Therefore you should forgive those who repent and ask to be forgiven, just as God forgives you for repenting and asking to be forgiven.

Why would God expect you to do something that He won't do, ie, forgive the unrepentant?

Quote from: TradGranny on February 04, 2023, 04:05:39 PMAs a victim of severe childhood multi-perpetrator assaults, let me say that it has been a long difficult process to forgive them. It has only been by the grace of God that I have been able to do so. Having said that, for the safety of familiy members, none of us have anything to do with any of the perpetrators, nor anyone who associates with them. To do so would be dangerous. Forgiveness is not something we do for the well-being of the other person; it is something we do to please God, to break the bond that would continue to tie us to the perps, and for our own well-being. Is my process complete? haha No. I am still a work in process. But every time the enemy attacks, I flee to Our Lord and Our Lady and my Guardian Angel for protection. And offer my suffering to God, which glorifies God and puts the enemy to shame.

How can it be pleasing to God for you to 'forgive' an unrepentant offender who is still dangerous?  If God doesn't forgive unrepentant sinners, why are you trying to go one step further than God?

If they had repented, they wouldn't still be a danger, would they. Because repentance implies a serious attempt to amend the behaviour which caused the harm.  And you say they are still dangerous.

Meanwhile, I applaud your attempts to let go of what was done to you.

By the way, I am also a victim of relentless cruelty and neglect throughout my entire childhood. Just thought I'd mention that.

Quote from: awkward customer on February 06, 2023, 04:07:10 AMIt is nonsense to suggest that while God demands repentance in order to forgive, we have to forgive the unrepentant.

I don't know where you people are getting your ideas from, but you have set standards for forgiveness that God has not.

Do you agree that God sends unrepentant fraudsters and murderers to Hell? Yes?

Then why do you insist that we must forgive such a person?
 

Because God is God, and we're not God.

Quote from: awkward customer on February 06, 2023, 05:42:33 AMBy the way, I am also a victim of relentless cruelty and neglect throughout my entire childhood. Just thought I'd mention that.

You're not alone. But you're not the first and won't be the last. There isn't an exempted class of believers according to the Sermon on the Mount, specifically Matthew 6:14-15.

QuoteFor if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences. But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.

That's Douay-Rheims, clear as day, not some revisionist translation. As for Matthew 6:13,

QuoteAnd lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.

Refusing to forgive can indeed be the result of having been led into temptation. In The Spiritual Combat, Fr. Lorenzo Scupoli said that we are not to rely on our own judgment but to trust in God instead. Fr. Scupoli also said that to forgive evil is to approach the Divine. (This is 16th century writing also admired by St. Francis de Sales, not some humanist self-affirmation psychobabble.)

Perhaps it's only semantics, and your admitted ability to "let go" does indeed entail forgiveness. From there, it's not much of a leap. Why let your soul continue to be yoked to the wrongdoing of others?

TradGranny, have you heard of St. Maria Goretti (https://www.nationalshrine.org/blog/st-maria-goretti-and-the-power-of-forgiveness/)? It's an example of forgiveness that's both awful and awesome when one first finds out about her story.

Quote from: Instaurare omnia on February 06, 2023, 08:13:03 AM

Quote from: awkward customer on February 06, 2023, 04:07:10 AMIt is nonsense to suggest that while God demands repentance in order to forgive, we have to forgive the unrepentant.

I don't know where you people are getting your ideas from, but you have set standards for forgiveness that God has not.

Do you agree that God sends unrepentant fraudsters and murderers to Hell? Yes?

Then why do you insist that we must forgive such a person?
 

Because God is God, and we're not God.

So, God doesn't forgive the unrepentant because He's God, but we have to because we're not God?

I think that's ridiculous. 

You're saying that God has double standards and that He sets higher standards for us than He does for Himself.

Beyond ridiculous.....

Quote from: Instaurare omnia on February 06, 2023, 08:40:55 AM

Quote from: awkward customer on February 06, 2023, 05:42:33 AMBy the way, I am also a victim of relentless cruelty and neglect throughout my entire childhood. Just thought I'd mention that.

You're not alone. But you're not the first and won't be the last. There isn't an exempted class of believers according to the Sermon on the Mount, specifically Matthew 6:14-15.

Tell this to Tradgranny.  I only mentioned this because she referred to her own childhood abuse.

Quote

QuoteFor if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences. But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.

That's Douay-Rheims, clear as day, not some revisionist translation. As for Matthew 6:13,

QuoteAnd lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.

Refusing to forgive can indeed be the result of having been led into temptation. In The Spiritual Combat, Fr. Lorenzo Scupoli said that we are not to rely on our own judgment but to trust in God instead. Fr. Scupoli also said that to forgive evil is to approach the Divine. (This is 16th century writing also admired by St. Francis de Sales, not some humanist self-affirmation psychobabble.)

But what is meant by forgiving?   This is what I keep wondering.

You, and others here, keep posting Scriptural quotes referring to the necessity of forgiving while brushing aside any Scriptural quote that refers to the conditions under which it is obligatory to forgive.

Matthew 18:15-17 is quite clear. If anyone offends you and will not "hear you", or hear the community or the Church, you are to treat the person as a publican or tax collector.

Are you saying that treating an unrepentant offender as a tax collector or publican is the equivalent of forgiving them.

If you are, then we clearly have two entirely different ideas about what forgiveness actually means.

QuotePerhaps it's only semantics, and your admitted ability to "let go" does indeed entail forgiveness. From there, it's not much of a leap. Why let your soul continue to be yoked to the wrongdoing of others?

What a nerve!

My ability to let go involves no foriveness because the people involved died unrepentant. 

Has God forgiven them, do you think?  Are they in Hell?  Do you think I should forgive people who are in Hell because they are unrepentant and therefore rejected by God?

The Truth shall set you free, and your soul, from the wrongdoing of others.  Half-baked notions of forgiveness won't.

Insisting that victims forgive their unrepentant abusers is tantamount to psychological abuse and gives the offender a free pass to continue the behaviour.  No-one has the right to place this burden on victims.

The responsibility for forgiveness begins with the perpetrator showing remorse and asking to be forgiven.   By insisting that victims forgive perpetrators who show no remorse and have no wish to be forgiven, you are shifting the responsibility for forgiveness to the victim.

This is an inversion of the Truth. 

Psychopaths must love it when you tell their victims to forgive them.

   

QuoteWhat a nerve!
My ability to let go involves no foriveness because the people involved died unrepentant.

:huh:
Is it "nerve" to suggest, having once thought as you do now, that explaining what helped me might help you too? 

I have forgiven people who died unrepentant. I did it after being tired of kicking and screaming on the inside, and after much imploring of God, but I did. It's not my place to speculate whether those souls are now in Hell or even Purgatory, in fact it's absolutely none of my business. What is my business is to try to live as God commands, and to shun secular "authorities" and revisionist pop theology. (Being able to forgive -- as Scripture and Tradition define it, not as laypeople define it -- opens us up to a noticeable beneficent difference that simply is not possible with any worldly intervention; only then does life begin to get easier and less harsh, slowly, but it definitely does.)

Is it my business, is it my obligation, to bother anymore with this topic? Maybe not. I'll shut up here, say a prayer, and let it go at that.  :pray1:

Quote from: awkward customer on February 06, 2023, 04:11:55 AMNonsense.  God does not forgive the unrepentant.  If He did, Hell would be empty.  Is Hell empty?  No.  Who is in Hell?  The unrepentant.

Your version of forgiveness only works if you re-write Matthew 18, which clearly states that we are to treat those who won't 'hear us' - the unrepentant - as publicans and tax collectors. 

Are you really saying that you know better than Matthew 18?

Well, I am not God and so I do not require one who offends me to be repentant.

Treating those won't hear me as publican or tax collector does not translate that I shall not forgive them. To my understanding it is just to let go of them, but it does not mean not forgiving them. Nothing in the Scripture or the Church Tradition would state that we Catholics should not forgive the publicans or the tax collectors. Tell me if there is anything like that, if you please.

I must do forgiveness to all who offend me so that God will forgive my sins too. I am not God to set His requirement or benchmark. I am a sinner who ought to forgive a fellow sinner like me. It is the reason vengeance must be of God only for He is sinless, unlike me.

For sure, there is hell and I absolutely fear to be there and so, I should forgive irrespective if that person is a publican or whatsoever. Catholicism is carrying the cross and so it is hard, but it is so easy to die a Catholic when ones soul is taintless of sinfulness. Forgiveness as requirement to be with Him, is in the Lord's Prayer. I must do that to be saved from the fires of hell.

Are you British or American? As Filipino, telling someone with one word "non-sense" is harsh and very disrespectful and not Catholic. It is a cultural thing anyway. God bless you.

Quote from: awkward customer on February 06, 2023, 10:33:54 AMInsisting that victims forgive their unrepentant abusers is tantamount to psychological abuse and gives the offender a free pass to continue the behaviour.  No-one has the right to place this burden on victims.

The responsibility for forgiveness begins with the perpetrator showing remorse and asking to be forgiven.   By insisting that victims forgive perpetrators who show no remorse and have no wish to be forgiven, you are shifting the responsibility for forgiveness to the victim.

This is an inversion of the Truth. 

Psychopaths must love it when you tell their victims to forgive them.

   

Jesus command us to love our enemies and that is to forgive them. God in the Old Testament commanded the Israelites to kill their enemies. St. Pope Pius V and the rest of Catholic leaders in our history ordered the death of the enemies of the Holy Church. God is the authority. These leaders acted as authority that are from our God. To put things in order, the Catholics execute judgment in keeping with "just war" by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas as guidance in moments where taking the life of the other shall be ordained in accordance with the order of the authorities. We do not put the law unto our own hands, and hence forgiveness is the command of God and that is His Law.

They are psychopaths and so to my understanding they do not possess the intellect of the goodness that is of God. They are mentally derange and must deserve your forgiveness. God's justice shall be imposed upon them in due time. If their psychopathic behavior is because the knowingly choose to be with the devil then they must burn in hell. But if they acted as such because they are ill and the evil thought and actions are not within the realm of their intellect to exercise freewill then, they maybe forgiven by God for they do not know what they did. Whatever is His judgment is beyond me. I must only forgive.

If you can 'forgive' someone and still treat them as a publican or tax collector then your forgiveness means nothing.

Matthew 18 is quite clear. We have no obligation to forgive those who won't "hear" us.

Luke 17:3 is also very clear.  We are only required to forgive those who "do penance".

QuoteTake heed to yourselves. If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him: and if he do penance, forgive him.

To be honest, I have no idea what you mean by forgiveness.  But since you repeatedly deny what the Gospels actually say, I think further discussion is pointless.

No, in my understanding Luke 17:3 is only instructive of an obligation to not to be cooperative towards sinfulness of someone who is close to you. It is not to be tolerant to the sinner just because of some kind of relationship. It is to prioritize God and not the relationship, and if that sinner showed remorse then it is time to forgive.

Forgiveness is not something like it is an emotional expression of niceties. Rather it is freeing ones soul from that baggage of pain of the wrong committed by others. It is ridding the will of the negative attributes of that injustice that one would suffer. Thus, to treat a person a publican or a tax collector despite that forgiveness is just being on guard against dangers, but the important aspect of that is to remove that pain or anything negative in the will to restore the goodness of God's nature in the soul.

To free that soul of evil by forgiving the enemies is here:

"But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust." (Matthew 5:44&45)

To treat them as publicans is just to be on guard against evil, but they should be provided with love by willing the good of them and forgiving them for we cannot pray for them if we do not forgive. Our prayers for them cannot reach Heaven without the requirement of forgiveness of their erring soul.

As I've pointed out forgiveness is not an emotional matter like we should be nice to them. It is not like that because we are not suppose to simulate but we should be truthful. It is just to free our soul from that pain because it is the breath of God and so it must remain its natural goodness. That forgiveness should be in the will and our intellect just for our soul to get rid of the pain. It is helping and loving our self to express that love to others because we cannot give what we don not have.

I'm listening to the Fatima Mission from Audio Sancto, and the priest repeatedly groups refusing to forgive an enemy with mortal sins, like looking at porn or using contraception. He never mentions an obligation for the enemy to repent before being forgiven. Very sobering.

You always forgive in terms of not holding a grudge, not being bitter or hateful, or wishing revenge. But not necessarily in terms of reconciliation, unless said person is contrite.  Christ does not forgive a person in Confession who is not at all contrite, there is no absolution.

The confusion here is quite something.

Praying for those who persecute you, not holding grudges, not desiring revenge is not forgiveness.

Forgiveness requires the contrition and repentance of the offender.  Forgiveness is something specific.  Forgiveness is not therapy.

It's amazing how therapised and modern the concept of forgiveness has become. 

As for the notion that we are required to forgive the unrepentent when God is not ..... where did that come from?

Straight out of the psychopath's handbook, I would suggest.

QuotePraying for those who persecute you, not holding grudges, not desiring revenge is not forgiveness.

Forgiveness requires the contrition and repentance of the offender.  Forgiveness is something specific.

So what is forgiveness then?

Quote from: awkward customer on February 06, 2023, 04:07:10 AMIt is nonsense to suggest that while God demands repentance in order to forgive, we have to forgive the unrepentant.

I don't know where you people are getting your ideas from.

We are getting our ideas from Jesus Christ.  He commands us to always forgive our enemies, even when they are not repentant. 70 x 7, which the Church teaches means endlessly. That teaching is repeated all throughout the New Testament.

See the clear distinction I made above. Forgiveness means not requiring your enemy to pay you a debt, for their wrongdoing, in order to still show them charity and mercy. But it doesn't mean not holding them to a debt, such as showing you contrition and remorse, in order to repair the friendship.

Christ forgives unconditionally all people in the first sense, and commands us to as well, but only conditionally in the second sense requiring repentance to heal the broken relationship. 

Quote from: Bernadette on March 05, 2023, 02:33:45 PMSo what is forgiveness then?

That's a good question.

Forgiveness is a response that God requires of us if a person who has harmed us expresses remorse, makes good the harm they have caused and resolves to amend the behaviour which led to the offence.

If those three elements are present, as I understand it, we are to consider the offence blotted out, in other words, we forgive and forget.

It's simple really .....

Quote from: Onward and Upward on March 05, 2023, 03:44:04 PMWe are getting our ideas from Jesus Christ.  He commands us to always forgive our enemies, even when they are not repentant.

Where does Christ command that of us?

Quote from: awkward customer on March 05, 2023, 03:50:00 PM

Quote from: Bernadette on March 05, 2023, 02:33:45 PMSo what is forgiveness then?

That's a good question.

Forgiveness is a response that God requires of us if a person who has harmed us expresses remorse, makes good the harm they have caused and resolves to amend the behaviour which led to the offence.

If those three elements are present, as I understand it, we are to consider the offence blotted out, in other words, we forgive and forget.

It's simple really .....

A "response" isn't a definition of forgiveness. That's still vague. 

Not sure where in Scripture, Tradition, or Catholic writings you get these rules for forgiveness (in the first sense I gave). 

Quote from: awkward customer on March 05, 2023, 03:51:33 PM

Quote from: Onward and Upward on March 05, 2023, 03:44:04 PMWe are getting our ideas from Jesus Christ.  He commands us to always forgive our enemies, even when they are not repentant.

Where does Christ command that of us?

Matthew 12.  Note forgiveness is a command upon which our salvation depends, with no conditions given on that command.

Therefore, see the two distinctions about forgiveness above. You must always forgive on the first sense, or else you risk your soul.  A traditional priest should also be consulted on this question. 

Quote from: Onward and Upward on March 05, 2023, 04:32:50 PM

Quote from: awkward customer on March 05, 2023, 03:51:33 PM

Quote from: Onward and Upward on March 05, 2023, 03:44:04 PMWe are getting our ideas from Jesus Christ.  He commands us to always forgive our enemies, even when they are not repentant.


Where does Christ command that of us?

Matthew 12.  Note forgiveness is a command upon which our salvation depends, with no conditions given on that command.

Therefore, see the two distinctions about forgiveness above. You must always forgive in the first sense, or else you risk your soul.  A traditional priest should also be consulted on this question. 

Quote from: Onward and Upward on March 05, 2023, 04:30:16 PMNot sure where in Scripture, Tradition, or Catholic writings you get these rules for forgiveness (in the first sense I gave). 

What do you mean by forgiveness?  Because I think we're talking about two different things h

Quote from: Onward and Upward on March 05, 2023, 04:32:50 PM

Quote from: awkward customer on March 05, 2023, 03:51:33 PM

Quote from: Onward and Upward on March 05, 2023, 03:44:04 PMWe are getting our ideas from Jesus Christ.  He commands us to always forgive our enemies, even when they are not repentant.

Where does Christ command that of us?

Matthew 12.  Note forgiveness is a command upon which our salvation depends, with no conditions given on that command.

Therefore, see the two distinctions about forgiveness above. You must always forgive on the first sense, or else you risk your soul.  A traditional priest should also be consulted on this question. 

Which verses in Matthew 12 do you mean?  And what do you mean by forgiveness anyway?

You claim my soul is at risk because I say that we are not obliged to forgive the unrepentant.  Show me evidence from Scripture to back up your assertion.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 05, 2023, 05:45:45 PM

Quote from: Onward and Upward on March 05, 2023, 04:30:16 PMNot sure where in Scripture, Tradition, or Catholic writings you get these rules for forgiveness (in the first sense I gave). 

What do you mean by forgiveness?  Because I think we're talking about two different things h

Quote from: Onward and Upward on March 05, 2023, 04:32:50 PM

Quote from: awkward customer on March 05, 2023, 03:51:33 PM

Quote from: Onward and Upward on March 05, 2023, 03:44:04 PMWe are getting our ideas from Jesus Christ.  He commands us to always forgive our enemies, even when they are not repentant.

Where does Christ command that of us?

Matthew 12.  Note forgiveness is a command upon which our salvation depends, with no conditions given on that command.

Therefore, see the two distinctions about forgiveness above. You must always forgive on the first sense, or else you risk your soul.  A traditional priest should also be consulted on this question. 

Which verses in Matthew 12 do you mean?  And what do you mean by forgiveness anyway?

You claim my soul is at risk because I say that we are not obliged to forgive the unrepentant.  Show me evidence from Scripture to back up your assertion.

I didn't say that about you personally.

As already stated, forgiveness regards the debt owed you by the transgressor. The kind Christ is referring to, which is unconditional, requires setting aside the debt owed (apology, contrition, restitution, etc) and still giving charity and mercy to your enemy.  In contrast to another kind of forgiveness you're referring to. 

My initial post was actually supporting your assertions in this thread.  Obviously we don't have to forgive the debt of contrition or restitution that is in order to reconcile to one's enemy.

"Forgive and forget" is not Catholic; it's not even biblical.  This seems like a good article about this issue:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/to-forgive-or-not-to-forgive-that-is-the-question

Hmm.

To forgive in my understanding does not translate being gullible. It does not mean toleration or cooperation to the sinfulness of anyone. It is an act of alligning thyself towards the grace of God. Truly, to forgive and forget is not Catholic because it abandons prudence and being on guard against evil. My take on this is to forgive is an obligation in compliance to the command of God.

So, forgive and remember is the Catholic way, is it?

Our sins aren't blotted out?  A tally is kept?




 

Quote from: Julio on March 05, 2023, 11:47:42 PMTruly, to forgive and forget is not Catholic because it abandons prudence and being on guard against evil. 

There would be no need to 'remember' if the offender had truly repented.  But since you and others insist that forgiveness is obligatory even when there is no contrition at all, you are obliged to 'remember' what they have done in case they do it again. 

True forgiveness means also forgetting because the person who caused the harm has truly repented.

The kind of forgiveness people are talking about here requires remembering because it isn't true forgiveness. 

Forgiveness isn't therapy.

Quote from: Onward and Upward on March 05, 2023, 06:09:56 PMAs already stated, forgiveness regards the debt owed you by the transgressor. The kind Christ is referring to, which is unconditional, requires setting aside the debt owed (apology, contrition, restitution, etc) and still giving charity and mercy to your enemy.  In contrast to another kind of forgiveness you're referring to. 

People here seem to be saying that there are two types of forgiveness: 

- conditional forgiveness which depends on contrition, restitution and the resolution to change the offending behaviour,

- and unconditional forgiveness which requires none of the above.

Is this Catholic teaching? 

God only forgives the repentant and He blots out the sins of the truly repentant.  There is no 'remembering' if forgiveness is true and forgiveness is only true if there is contrition, restitution etc.

Giving charity and mercy to an unrepentant offender is not forgiveness.

'Forgiving and remembering' an unrepentant offender is therapy, not forgiveness.

Haddock commentary on Matthew 18:21:

Ver. 21. S. Peter knew the Jews to be much given to revenge; he therefore thought it a great proof of superior virtue to be able to forgive seven times. It was for this reason he proposed this question to our Lord; who, to shew how much he esteemed charity, immediately answered, not only seven times, but seventy times seven times. He does not mean to say that this number must be the bounds of our forgiving; we must forgive to the end, and never take revenge, however often our brother offend against us. There must be no end of forgiving poor culprits that sincerely repent, either in the sacrament of penance, or one man another his offences. B. — To recommend this great virtue more forcibly, he subjoins the parable of the king taking his accounts: and, from the great severity there exercised, he intimates how rigid will his heavenly Father be to those who forgive not their enemies. Dion. Carth.

Yes we are to forgive without limit, but as awkward customer has been trying to explain (if I'm understanding), true repentance ("sincerely repent") is needed first.

Quote from: Baylee on March 06, 2023, 06:57:17 AMYes we are to forgive without limit, but as awkward customer has been trying to explain (if I'm understanding), true repentance ("sincerely repent") is needed first.

Yes, that's it.  God doesn't forgive the unrepentant and yet somehow we're obliged to.

Praying for the unrepentant and feeding them if they're hungry isn't forgiveness. It might make people feel better to think of such acts of charity as forgiveness.  But they aren't.
 

Quote from: awkward customer on March 06, 2023, 01:10:21 PM

Quote from: Baylee on March 06, 2023, 06:57:17 AMYes we are to forgive without limit, but as awkward customer has been trying to explain (if I'm understanding), true repentance ("sincerely repent") is needed first.

Yes, that's it.  God doesn't forgive the unrepentant and yet somehow we're obliged to.

Praying for the unrepentant and feeding them if they're hungry isn't forgiveness. It might make people feel better to think of such acts of charity as forgiveness.  But they aren't.
 

I admit you might be right, and I/we have been ill informed by our clergy, but that would mean a major paradigm shift in how one interacts with people in your life who remain unrepentant. You would have to harden your reserve towards them and keep even greater distance, than if you forgave them without requiring any apology or change.  I would need to read more from Catholic sources saying this is the correct rule for true forgiveness. Again, do you have Catholic sources that say this?

God doesn't forget our sins.

QuoteThere is no such thing as divine amnesia. Jesus will not be forever in heaven asking, "How did these holes get in my hands and feet?" "I will not remember" is an anthropomorphic way of saying God will not forever hold sins against us that have been forgiven.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 06, 2023, 05:47:26 AMThere would be no need to 'remember' if the offender had truly repented.  But since you and others insist that forgiveness is obligatory even when there is no contrition at all, you are obliged to 'remember' what they have done in case they do it again. 

True forgiveness means also forgetting because the person who caused the harm has truly repented.

The kind of forgiveness people are talking about here requires remembering because it isn't true forgiveness. 

Forgiveness isn't therapy.

When God forgave those who sinned against Him while He was crucified it was rendered because according to Him they do not know they did. In other words there was no contrition at all. While it is true that contrition is among the demands of God to obtain His forgiveness, but we are not God. Yet we are obliged to forgive.

When Saints were martyred and they forgave their assailants who did not contrite, does it mean they were not doing it the Catholic way? Please take a look at how some of the Saints forgave those who killed them and they did it while they were being murdered by these grave sinners. My example is the flaying of St. Bartholomew.

The priest who prepared St. .Maria Goretti for death after she was viciously attacked told her she must forgive her attacker in order to go to heaven. She did, and is thus St. Maria Goretti. She even appeared to her attacker when he was in prison and converted him.

Quote from: Bernadette on March 06, 2023, 02:21:10 PMThe priest who prepared St. .Maria Goretti for death after she was viciously attacked told her she must forgive her attacker in order to go to heaven. She did, and is thus St. Maria Goretti. She even appeared to her attacker when he was in prison and converted him.

Indeed, and that is a classic example of forgiving a sinner who did not contrite. God bless. Certainly, this person eventually contrite but that happened after St. Maria Goretti, forgave him.

Quote from: Bernadette on March 06, 2023, 02:21:10 PMThe priest who prepared St. .Maria Goretti for death after she was viciously attacked told her she must forgive her attacker in order to go to heaven. She did, and is thus St. Maria Goretti. She even appeared to her attacker when he was in prison and converted him.

This sound like coercion to me.  Forgive or else!!

Is it true?

Did Maria Goretti forgive her mother for not only failing to protect her from the neighbour's advances, but dismissing Maria's pleas not to leave her alone with him and even insisting that she go into his room alone in  order to mend his shirt.  When Maria begged her mother not to send her, her mother threw a brush at her head.

Maria Goretti was a traumatised child whose mother ignored the threat that Alessandro posed to her daughter.  But hey, the mother forgave him for killing Maria, so she must be good, right.

Her experience with her mother is totally irrelevant to her exemplary virtue of possessing that forgiving heart to the assailant that did not contrite at the time she made her act of forgiveness. The point is she forgave that man who abused her and she was able to obtain Paradise. That runs in contrast to the allegation that there is that need of contrition before a person must give forgiveness. I see the act of contrition as the requirement of God but not for the mortals. Jesus as a man forgave those who did not contrite. His humanity is worth emulating.
 
The fact is Saint Maria Goretti did forgive a person who gravely sinned sans contrition. That made her a Saint.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 06, 2023, 03:53:31 PM

Quote from: Bernadette on March 06, 2023, 02:21:10 PMThe priest who prepared St. .Maria Goretti for death after she was viciously attacked told her she must forgive her attacker in order to go to heaven. She did, and is thus St. Maria Goretti. She even appeared to her attacker when he was in prison and converted him.

This sound like coercion to me.  Forgive or else!!

Is it true?

No, it is guidance towards piousness.

Is it standard practice for priests to tell dying murder victims that they must forgive their assailant or they won't get to heaven?

St Maria Goretti was a "martyr for purity", according to Pope Pius XII.  She is the Patron Saint of purity, young women and victims of assault.

Some people want to make her the patroness of forgiveness for the unrepentant.

She was a dying child, who had recently lost her father, whose mother betrayed her and whose neighbour Alessandro sexually harassed her for months before finally mortally stabbing her fourteen times. She was told by a priest as she lay dying from her wounds to forgive her assailant or she wouldn't get to heaven.

Of course she said she forgave him.  Who wouldn't?

But Alessandro continued to show no sorrow or remorse for his dreadful crime.  It wasn't until several years later when he claimed he had seen a vision of Maria, that Alessandro announced his repentance and was given time off his sentence.

Oh dear. 

Who's to say that he didn't make up the vision to get time off his sentence when he heard that Maria was being venerated for the defence of her purity.

Am I being cynical?  Alessandro joined the Capuchins and was allowed to work with children.  They must have believed him. 

Do you have Catholic sources—-other than a Catholic Answers article by Tim Staples—-to support your position?  The obviously true statement "We must forgive those who repent" does not to equate with the questionable position of "Therefore, they must repent before we can forgive."

There's this -

Quote15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.  17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Matthew 18

Of course there's no rule which says you can't 'forgive' someone who isn't sorry. It's up to you what you do.  The problem I have is that people are saying it's obligatory.

The idea that unconditional forgiveness is obligatory is entirely modern and is typical of therapy circles and 12-Step programmes.  I used to know a man who had been told by people at his Alcoholics Anonymous meeting that he had to forgive his step-father for murdering his mother.

He was in great distress after being also told that he wasn't practising the programme properly and that he would drink again if he didn't forgive.  When I asked if his step-father had shown any remorse he replied that he hadn't.  His step-father had shown no remorse at all and had served a few years of a sentence with lots of time off for good behaviour.

When I suggested that maybe he wasn't obliged to forgive, he replied despairingly that the people in AA had said he must and that was that.  But he couldn't forgive his unrepentant step-father for murdering his mother, no matter how hard he tried, and he didn't know what to do.

Two weeks later I found out that he'd committed suicide.

I had a thought about the Jews.  Our Lord does not forgive them UNTIL they repent and convert.  The more I think on this, I don't see where Our Lord forgives without repentance.  And if that is the case, why would Our Lord expect more from us?

Quote from: awkward customer on March 06, 2023, 03:53:31 PM

Quote from: Bernadette on March 06, 2023, 02:21:10 PMThe priest who prepared St. .Maria Goretti for death after she was viciously attacked told her she must forgive her attacker in order to go to heaven. She did, and is thus St. Maria Goretti. She even appeared to her attacker when he was in prison and converted him.

This sound like coercion to me.  Forgive or else!!

Is it true?

I remembered this story incorrectly. I happened to listen to the sermon it was in today, and the priest didn't tell St. Maria Goretti she had to forgive her attacker, he just asked her if she did. She said yes, and that she wanted him in heaven with her.

Quote from: Onward and Upward on March 07, 2023, 11:20:30 AMDo you have Catholic sources—-other than a Catholic Answers article by Tim Staples—-to support your position?  The obviously true statement "We must forgive those who repent" does not to equate with the questionable position of "Therefore, they must repent before we can forgive."

Sorry for the poor source.  I looked at the commentaries in my Douay-Rheims, Confraternity and Knox bibles but did not find anything useful.  The Catena appears to have some useful commentary, though, much of which doesn't agree with Tim Staples from Catholic Answers:

QuoteCHRYSOSTOM. It is to be noted, that onewhile the Lord brings the offender to him whom he has offended; as when he says, If thou remember that thy brother has might against thee, go, be reconciled to thy brother: (Mat. 5:23.) otherwhiles He bids him that has suffered the wrong to forgive his neighbour; as where he says, Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. (Mat. 6:12.) Here He has devised yet another method, for He brings him who has been grieved to him that grieved him, and therefore says, If thy brother sin against thee; for because he that did the wrong would not readily come to make amends, because of his shame, He draws to him him that has suffered the wrong; and not only draws him there, but with the very purpose of correcting what was done amiss; whence He says, Go and tell hint his fault.

RABANUS. He does not command us to forgive indiscriminately, but him only that will hearken and be obedient, and do penitence; that neither should forgiveness be unattainable, nor sufferance be too far relaxed.

CHRYSOSTOM. And He says not, Accuse him, nor, Chide with him, nor, Demand redress,—but, Tell him of his fault; that is, remind him of his sin, tell him what things you have suffered from him. For he is held down by anger or by shame, stupefied as one in a deep slumber. Wherefore it behoves you who are in your right senses to go to him who is in a disease.

JEROME. If then your brother have sinned against you, or hurt you in any matter, you have power, indeed must needs forgive him, for we are charged to forgive our debtors their debts. But if a man sin against God, it is no longer in our decision. But we do all tho contrary of this; where God is wronged we are merciful, where the affront is to ourselves we prosecute the quarrel.

CHRYSOSTOM. We are to tell his fault to the man himself who did it, and not to another, because the party takes it with the more patience from him, and above all when they are together alone. For when he who had a right to demand reparation, shews rather a carefulness to heal the sore, this has great power to propitiate.

AUGUSTINE. (Serm. 82, 7.) When any one therefore offends against us, let us be very careful, not for ourselves, for it is glorious to forget an injury; forget therefore your own wrong, but not the wound your brother has sustained; and tell him of his fault between him and you alone, seeking his amendment and sparing his shame. For it may be that out of shame he will seek to defend his fault, and thus you will only harden, while you sought to do him good.

CHRYSOSTOM. Yet the Lord enjoins nothing of this sort to be observed towards those who are without the Church, such as He does in reproving a brother. Of those that are without He says. If any smite thee on the one cheek, offer to him the other also. (Mat. 5:39.) as Paul speaks, What have I to do to judge them that are without? (1 Cor. 5:12.) But brethren he bids us reprove, and turn away from.

That's about as close as I can find to commentary about this specific issue.  Even then, there's not much specifying whether or not to forgive depending on the contrition of the offender.

The more pertinent thread in these commentaries is how to treat offenders who are within the Church rather than a universal rule.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 06, 2023, 04:01:13 PMDid Maria Goretti forgive her mother for not only failing to protect her from the neighbour's advances, but dismissing Maria's pleas not to leave her alone with him and even insisting that she go into his room alone in  order to mend his shirt.  When Maria begged her mother not to send her, her mother threw a brush at her head.

Maria Goretti was a traumatised child whose mother ignored the threat that Alessandro posed to her daughter.  But hey, the mother forgave him for killing Maria, so she must be good, right.

Did you read these things about St. Maria Goretti's mother? Please provide evidence for them, or take them back.

I read that Assunta, the mother, did forgive Alessandro, but it was expressed after he had repented, was out of prison, and begged for forgiveness. Here's good evidence of this: http://www.papalartifacts.com/portfolio-item/assunta-goretti/

It doesn't say whether she refused to forgive him earlier, e.g. in her heart, maybe after praying to her daughter. But it was Maria who was canonized, not her mother.

Quote from: Josephine87 on March 07, 2023, 04:30:15 PMSorry for the poor source. 

I forgive you, in the true sense of the word.  ;)

Quote from: Non Nobis on March 07, 2023, 05:05:58 PMDid you read these things about St. Maria Goretti's mother? Please provide evidence for them, or take them back.

I read them on two websites.

Here ....

QuoteMaria begged her mother never to leave her alone, but her mother shrugged Maria off. There is a story that one time, Maria and her mother were doing chores when Alessandro called for Maria to mend his shirt. Knowing his intentions, Maria begged her mother not to make her go, but her mother threw her slipper at her and told her to do as Alessandro was asking of her. Biographers have stated that Maria sought refuge with her Heavenly Mother Mary, and it can be seen that she did so because she knew it was hopeless to seek the help of her earthly mother.

No doubt, Maria's mother was also scared. She was a widow with six children to provide for, just narrowly escaping complete poverty by sharing the home and workload with the Serenellis. She did not want anything to put the rest of them in danger! However, by doing this, Maria's mother basically sacrificed Maria to the whims of angry and powerful Alessandro.

https://epicpew.com/maria-goretti-remarkable/

And here.

QuoteMaria submitted to her abuse—up to a point—in part because her family's shelter hung in the balance. To the extent that those around her turned a blind eye this, too, was the reason. Better not to know than to know, even if not knowing involves knowing precisely what you don't know; McNeil quotes one pious biography to this effect:

"Alessandro said to the girl, 'Marietta, look! There is a shirt on my bed that needs mending!' When she did not reply, her mother assumed that she had not understood him. She said, 'Marietta, did you hear what Alessandro said to you? He has a shirt that needs mending.' Marietta pretended not to have heard Alessandro's words, because she sensed what it was he really wanted. She replied, 'But how can I tidy up the kitchen and mend the shirt? And I have to hold little Teresa on one arm too.' Her Mamma lost her temper and threw one of her slippers at Marietta, hitting her on the head. Then she said, 'Very well, Mamma, then I will just stay here alone.' Her mother's conscience reproached her for this until the day of her death."

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/problems-maria

However, I've no idea which "pious biography" is being quoted.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 07, 2023, 05:10:16 AMSt Maria Goretti was a "martyr for purity", according to Pope Pius XII.  She is the Patron Saint of purity, young women and victims of assault.

Some people want to make her the patroness of forgiveness for the unrepentant.

She was a dying child, who had recently lost her father, whose mother betrayed her and whose neighbour Alessandro sexually harassed her for months before finally mortally stabbing her fourteen times. She was told by a priest as she lay dying from her wounds to forgive her assailant or she wouldn't get to heaven.

Of course she said she forgave him.  Who wouldn't?

But Alessandro continued to show no sorrow or remorse for his dreadful crime.  It wasn't until several years later when he claimed he had seen a vision of Maria, that Alessandro announced his repentance and was given time off his sentence.

Oh dear. 

Who's to say that he didn't make up the vision to get time off his sentence when he heard that Maria was being venerated for the defence of her purity.

Am I being cynical?  Alessandro joined the Capuchins and was allowed to work with children.  They must have believed him. 

Your entire discussion failed to dismiss that this Saint forgave a sinner who did not repent or contrite. It did not provide any counter argument to the premise that to forgive an unrepentant sinner is Catholic. She did that and she is a Catholic Saint.

Quote from: Julio on March 09, 2023, 06:23:52 PMYour entire discussion failed to dismiss that this Saint forgave a sinner who did not repent or contrite. It did not provide any counter argument to the premise that to forgive an unrepentant sinner is Catholic. She did that and she is a Catholic Saint.

And your entire contribution to this thread has consisted of you repeating the same ludicrous assertion over and over again.  You have provided no references and no Scriptural quotes to back up what you are saying.

It is ludicrous to suggest that Catholics are obliged to forgive the unrepentant when clearly God is not.  Are you more forgiving than God?  What arrogance.

Saint Maria Goretti is the patron saint of purity, young women and victims of assault.  Pope Pius XII praised her as a   "virgin-martyr ...... who did not hesitate to struggle and to suffer, to shed her life's blood and to die with heroic courage in order to keep herself pure and to preserve the lily-white flowers of her virginity."
https://www.ncregister.com/features/rethinking-st-maria-goretti

But you, and others, are trying to co-opt her for your own very Modern agenda, which basically consists of letting offenders off the hook. Your assertion that the unrepentant must be forgiven is entirely Modern.  It comes out of an age in which no-one is responsible for the consequences of their action and everyone is a victim, even murderers.

Alessandro could have faked his conversion.  Yes he could.  A man capable of such a heinous crime as mortally stabbing a 12-year old girl 14 times is capable of anything.  But Saint Maria Goretti's sanctity does not depend on the conversion, genuine or otherwise, of Alessandro.

Saint Maria Goretti, pray for us. 

I think we just have different definitions of forgiveness.

Has anyone provided Church teaching on "forgiveness" on whether we are required to forgive PRIOR to repentance (outside of the Bible commentary I (and I now see Michael Wilson) provided which teaches that we are not)?

Moral THeology by Fr. Heribert Jone. #135 A) on loving our enemies. "Forgiveness is therefore a duty, even though one's enemy does not ask for it."

Also The Catechism Explained by Spirago: "VIII The Commandment to love our enemy. 2: The love of our enemy is shown in this: that we do not revenge ourselves upon him, that we return good for evil, that we pray for him, and forgive him willingly."

Moral Theology by Fr Heribert Jone, (135, 2)

"An offender is bound to ask for forgiveness."

Quote from: Bernadette on March 10, 2023, 07:46:31 AMAlso The Catechism Explained by Spirago: "VIII The Commandment to love our enemy. 2: The love of our enemy is shown in this: that we do not revenge ourselves upon him, that we return good for evil, that we pray for him, and forgive him willingly."

This isn't forgiveness as such.  This is - loving our enemies and praying for those who persecute us.  Not wanting revenge isn't forgiveness either.

You were right when you said above that we have different definitions of forgiveness.

Quote from: Baylee on March 10, 2023, 06:48:32 AMHas anyone provided Church teaching on "forgiveness" on whether we are required to forgive PRIOR to repentance (outside of the Bible commentary I (and I now see Michael Wilson) provided which teaches that we are not)?

I had information like this when I looked into the subject in detail.  I also consulted a priest.  But this was a while ago and I can't find the sources.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 10, 2023, 10:14:02 AMMoral Theology by Fr Heribert Jone, (135, 2)

"An offender is bound to ask for forgiveness."

Yes, an offender is morally bound to ask for forgiveness, but our forgiveness is still a duty, even if the offender doesn't ask.

Quote from: Bernadette on March 10, 2023, 10:46:08 AMYes, an offender is morally bound to ask for forgiveness, but our forgiveness is still a duty, even if the offender doesn't ask.

What do you make of the following then?

QuoteTake heed to yourselves. If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him: and if he do penance, forgive him.

Luke 17:3

If your brother do penance, forgive him.  If.....

Surely this contradicts what Fr Heribert Jone says above.  According to my reading of Luke 17:3, forgiveness is conditional.

Perhaps the actual request to be forgiven that Jone refers to isn't entirely necessary for forgiveness.  An offender could make restitution for an offense without actually apologising, and that would be enough for forgiveness. For example, if someone carelessly damaged something of mine, didn't apologise, but paid for a new whatever it was, I would definitely forgive them.  The act of paying for the damage would be more than enough.

There must be some way of getting to the bottom of this.  We need analysis. And context.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 10, 2023, 11:29:12 AM

Quote from: Bernadette on March 10, 2023, 10:46:08 AMYes, an offender is morally bound to ask for forgiveness, but our forgiveness is still a duty, even if the offender doesn't ask.

What do you make of the following then?

QuoteTake heed to yourselves. If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him: and if he do penance, forgive him.

Luke 17:3

If your brother do penance, forgive him.  If.....

Surely this contradicts what Fr Heribert Jone says above.  According to my reading of Luke 17:3, forgiveness is conditional.

Perhaps the actual request to be forgiven that Jone refers to isn't entirely necessary for forgiveness.  An offender could make restitution for an offense without actually apologising, and that would be enough for forgiveness. For example, if someone carelessly damaged something of mine, didn't apologise, but paid for a new whatever it was, I would definitely forgive them.  The act of paying for the damage would be more than enough.

There must be some way of getting to the bottom of this.  We need analysis. And context.

The problem with referring to Jone is that that Moral Theology book was written for priests to advise penitents.  I think a Catholic priest (Traditional) would be better at interpreting him.

All the verse quoted is saying  is in the case of someone repenting, you must forgive. It doesn't say "Unless the offender repents, you are not obliged to forgive." Taken in context of all other Scripture verses and Tradition, we must always forgive in both cases, if the person repents or doesn't repent.  That means reconciliation in the first case, and not harboring hatred or revengeful thoughts, but instead wanting the good for the person, in the second case. 

QuoteUntil the time of the Reformation no theologian ever thought of denying the necessity of contrition for the forgiveness of sin. But with the coming of Luther and his doctrine of justification by faith alone the absolute necessity of contrition was excluded as by a natural consequence. Leo X in the famous Bull "Exsurge" [Denzinger, no. 751 (635)] condemned the following Lutheran position: "By no means believe that you are forgiven on account of your contrition, but because of Christ's words, 'Whatsoever thou shalt loose', etc. On this account I say, that if you receive the priest's absolution, believe firmly that you are absolved, and truly absolved you will be, let the contrition be as it may." Luther could not deny that in every true conversion there was grief of soul, but he asserted that this was the result of the grace of God poured into the soul at the time of justification, etc. (for this discussion see Vacant, Dict. de théol. cath., s.v. Contrition.)

Catholic writers have always taught the necessity of contrition for the forgiveness of sin, and they have insisted that such necessity arises (a) from the very nature of repentance as well as (b) from the positive command of God. (a) 'They point out that the sentence of Christ in Luke 13:5, is final: "Except you do penance", etc., and from the Fathers they cite passages such as the following from Cyprian, De Lapsis 32: "Do penance in full, give proof of the sorrow that comes from a grieving and lamenting soul . . . they who do away with repentance for sin, close the door to satisfaction." Scholastic doctors laid down the satisfaction' principle, "No one can begin a new life who does not repent him of the old" (Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xvi, Pt. II, art. 1, Q. ii, also ex professo, ibid., Pt. I, art. I, Q. iii), and when asked the reason why, they point out the absolute incongruity of turning to God and clinging to sin, which is hostile to God's law.

The Council of Trent, mindful of the tradition of the ages, defined (Sess. XIV. ch. iv de Contritione) that "contrition has always been necessary for obtaining forgiveness of sin". (b) The positive command of God is also clear in the premises. The Baptist sounded the note of preparation for the coming of the Messias: "Make straight his paths"; and, as a consequence "they went out to him and were baptized confessing their sins". The first preaching of Jesus is described in the words: "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"; and the Apostles, in their first sermons to the people, warn them to "do penance and be baptized for the remission of their sins" (Acts 2:38). The Fathers followed up with like exhortation (Clement in P.G., I, 341; Hermas iii P.G., II, 894; Tertullian in P.L., II).

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm

Δ that seems to refer to the forgiveness of sins in the Sacrament of Penance, God forgiving sins.

Straw man. We all admit we must be sorry to God to receive absolution and reconciliation with Him. And if your enemy comes to you apologizing sincerely, you must forgive him. Yet you keep equating that to mean you aren't obliged to also forgive the unrepentant.  You're literally the only Catholic  I've heard claim this.  Did it occur to you what the Bible and Church means by "forgiveness" has more than one kind, not just needing to forgivie the repentant?  Any concern you are taking a novel position that can set you up to be bitter towards your enemies? I agree narcissism has become a plague, but I hope you aren't letting it justify an erroneous view of forgiveness.

By the way, no one here says forgiving the unrepentant means "letting them off the hook," meaning enabling narcissistic abuse. No one suggested that.

Quote from: Onward and Upward on March 10, 2023, 05:16:01 PMStraw man. We all admit we must be sorry to God to receive absolution and reconciliation with Him. And if your enemy comes to you apologizing sincerely, you must forgive him. Yet you keep equating that to mean you aren't obliged to also forgive the unrepentant.

That's right.  And we keep arguing over the same point.  And it doesn't matter how clear the Scriptural and other quotes, the argument goes on.

The idea that God requires repentance in order to forgive, but we don't, is incomprehensible to me.

You believe, no doubt sincerely, that there are two types of forgiveness, one for the repentant and one for the unrepentant.

My sincere belief is that this is an error.

QuoteYou're literally the only Catholic  I've heard claim this. 

Priests have told me this, so I don't know who you've been talking to.

QuoteDid it occur to you what the Bible and Church means by "forgiveness" has more than one kind, not just needing to forgivie the repentant?

No.  Because there is only one kind of forgiveness, the kind that Christ tells us to practice in, for example, Luke 17:13.  We keep coming back to this fundamental disagreement.  The second kind of forgiveness that you and Bernadette keep referring to isn't forgiveness.  It requires praying for that person to repent, for one thing, as well as not indulging a desire for revenge, treating them with necessary kindness etc.

We fundamentally disagree on this point. 

QuoteAny concern you are taking a novel position that can set you up to be bitter towards your enemies?

You're position is entirely novel to me.

Meanwhile I pray for those who persecute me.

QuoteI agree narcissism has become a plague, but I hope you aren't letting it justify an erroneous view of forgiveness.

By the way, no one here says forgiving the unrepentant means "letting them off the hook," meaning enabling narcissistic abuse. No one suggested that.

Every narcissist I've ever known - and I've known a few - has insisted on unconditional forgiveness.

You are playing into their hands.

Narcissists don't demand the kind of forgiveness we're talking about, but the kind you're talking about. They want reconciliation without them being repentant.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 10, 2023, 03:53:28 AMAnd your entire contribution to this thread has consisted of you repeating the same ludicrous assertion over and over again.  You have provided no references and no Scriptural quotes to back up what you are saying.

It is ludicrous to suggest that Catholics are obliged to forgive the unrepentant when clearly God is not.  Are you more forgiving than God?  What arrogance.

Saint Maria Goretti is the patron saint of purity, young women and victims of assault.  Pope Pius XII praised her as a   "virgin-martyr ...... who did not hesitate to struggle and to suffer, to shed her life's blood and to die with heroic courage in order to keep herself pure and to preserve the lily-white flowers of her virginity."
https://www.ncregister.com/features/rethinking-st-maria-goretti

But you, and others, are trying to co-opt her for your own very Modern agenda, which basically consists of letting offenders off the hook. Your assertion that the unrepentant must be forgiven is entirely Modern.  It comes out of an age in which no-one is responsible for the consequences of their action and everyone is a victim, even murderers.

Alessandro could have faked his conversion.  Yes he could.  A man capable of such a heinous crime as mortally stabbing a 12-year old girl 14 times is capable of anything.  But Saint Maria Goretti's sanctity does not depend on the conversion, genuine or otherwise, of Alessandro.

Saint Maria Goretti, pray for us. 

It is not arrogance but subservience to His will. He can judge, but I can't.

"Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect."

If Our Father in Heaven forgives after we repent, and He is perfect, then to be perfect like Him would mean we do the same. No?

^^First of all God forgave those unrepentant sinners while He was on the cross because He said, "they do not know what they were doing." The truth of the Holy Trinity as the one God. Moreover, I am not God to judge the requirement of repentance by a sinner. There are just acts that are exclusive upon the simpleness of God contrary to the complex constitution of His creation like me.

Like Jesus who forgave those unrepentant sinners, don't you think that is perfection?

Take note of the context of foriveness that Jesus did, for that was executed by Him both as one of the Persons constituting the Holy Trinity one God and as human. He said and did it while He was crucified and was unimaginably experiencing from severe suffering in the hands of those who brought Him to that mountain to die on that wooden cross. He showed to humanity how important was the act of forgiveness sans contrition or repentance by any sinner, and He did that while sacrificing to redeem the sins. Worth emulating as an act of a human, isn't it?

This is not to say that God is not going to punish the sinners and those who decided to go to hell. He will do that as the ultimate Judge. Many will burn in hell and shall be with the fallen angels. Nevertheless, Jesus showed the meaning of, "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us," in the Lord's Prayer.

That is perfect.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 10, 2023, 06:06:55 PMEvery narcissist I've ever known - and I've known a few - has insisted on unconditional forgiveness.

You are playing into their hands.

Jesus forgave those unrepentant sinners while He was on the cross. You cannot change that truth.

I just want to add that forgiving unrepentant sinners is not modern. Jesus did that while He was crucified and knew that He was about to die.

No.  Christ did not forgive the unrepentant sinners while He was still on the Cross.  Christ asked God the Father to forgive them.  The clue is in what He said.

He said, "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do."

Christ did not forgive them because they were unrepentant and instead He asked God the Father to forgive them, which is exactly what I have been arguing all along. 

If an offender is unrepentant, we are not in a position to forgive them.  So we pray to God for their repentance.  We pray that God forgives them.

Quote from: Julio on March 11, 2023, 12:05:07 AMI just want to add that forgiving unrepentant sinners is not modern. Jesus did that while He was crucified and knew that He was about to die.

By using this example you have perfectly illustrated how wrong your argument is.

Christ did not forgive unrepentant sinners from the Cross.  He asked God the Father to forgive them.

We don't forgive unrepentant sinners, just as Christ didn't forgive unrepentant sinners.  Instead we pray for them ....

Quote from: Julio on March 10, 2023, 11:55:36 PMTake note of the context of foriveness that Jesus did, for that was executed by Him both as one of the Persons constituting the Holy Trinity one God and as human. He said and did it while He was crucified and was unimaginably experiencing from severe suffering in the hands of those who brought Him to that mountain to die on that wooden cross. He showed to humanity how important was the act of forgiveness sans contrition or repentance by any sinner, and He did that while sacrificing to redeem the sins. Worth emulating as an act of a human, isn't it?

This is not to say that God is not going to punish the sinners and those who decided to go to hell. He will do that as the ultimate Judge. Many will burn in hell and shall be with the fallen angels. Nevertheless, Jesus showed the meaning of, "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us," in the Lord's Prayer.

That is perfect.

"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

Are you saying that God will forgive us before we repent as long as we forgive others before they repent?  The fact is: He doesn't forgive us until we repent....so your interpretation of the Lord's Prayer must be wrong.

This is an old thread about the same subject with some good quotes on the matter, one from Aquinas:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21576

Quote from: awkward customer on March 11, 2023, 04:50:37 AM

Quote from: Julio on March 11, 2023, 12:05:07 AMI just want to add that forgiving unrepentant sinners is not modern. Jesus did that while He was crucified and knew that He was about to die.

By using this example you have perfectly illustrated how wrong your argument is.

Christ did not forgive unrepentant sinners from the Cross.  He asked God the Father to forgive them.

We don't forgive unrepentant sinners, just as Christ didn't forgive unrepentant sinners.  Instead we pray for them ....

Jesus and God the Father is the same one God. As a man, He was just showing how a human must behave in relation to forgiveness. Like what you stated Jesus asked God the Father to forgive them, and hence His will as a man and God in unity with the Holy Trinity shall be done.

Those that Jesus forgave while He was crucified were unrepentant. He just did that and you failed to show any evidence to controvert that fact.

Quote from: Baylee on March 11, 2023, 07:54:49 AM"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

Are you saying that God will forgive us before we repent as long as we forgive others before they repent?  The fact is: He doesn't forgive us until we repent....so your interpretation of the Lord's Prayer must be wrong.

You know that Jesus forgave the unrepentant sinners while He was crucified. That is an act of a true human which He asked from God the Father that is the same God as He. That was His will.

You are equating the benchmark of human forgiveness to the way God shall adjudge all of us. You don't equate your requirement to that of God. When Jesus forgave those unrepentant sinners while He was on the cross, He just showed how forgiveness should be done. This is not modernism. This is the truth. This is not to justify that hell is inexistent. This is just the way humans must act.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 11, 2023, 04:39:52 AMNo.  Christ did not forgive the unrepentant sinners while He was still on the Cross.  Christ asked God the Father to forgive them.  The clue is in what He said.

He said, "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do."

Christ did not forgive them because they were unrepentant and instead He asked God the Father to forgive them, which is exactly what I have been arguing all along. 

If an offender is unrepentant, we are not in a position to forgive them.  So we pray to God for their repentance.  We pray that God forgives them.

They were unrepentant and since Jesus is amongst the Holy Trinity, His will shall be done. God is not inconsistent.

You failed to show the fact that God is not inconsistent. His will must be done.

Quote from: Julio on March 11, 2023, 05:56:55 PMJesus and God the Father is the same one God.

But not the same Person.

Three Persons in one God is how I understand it.  Do you?

God the Son is a distinct Person.  He asked God the Father, who is also a distinct Person, to forgive the unrepentant sinners who had crucified Him.  He didn't forgive them Himself because they were unrepentant.  But He still loved them and prayed for them.

This is the example I follow.  Don't know about you.

^^Exactly, not the same person but the will of Jesus is the will of God the Father and the Holy Ghost because they are the Holy Trinity one God. Those words spoken by Jesus while He was crucified were the words of God and Himself as a true human.

It was the will of the Holy Trinity for the forgiveness of the unrepentant sinners. There is no issue about love for God love all His creations. The crux of the matter is Jesus willed the forgiveness of unrepentant sinners. He willed that and since God is consistent, and that will must be the will of the Holy Trinity.

The consistency of God in relation to the forgiveness towards these unrepentant sinners was there. Did these sinners contrite or repent before Jesus did that? For obvious reason there was none.

If that is the example that you follow, then you must be forgiving unrepentant sinners too. You will for their forgiveness, don't you? If that is the case, then you forgive unrepentant sinners contrary to your allegation that you don't and you just pray for them.

Moreover, if you pray for them, what is the content of your prayer? You cannot ask God to fogive their sins if you hadn't forgiven the sins of your trespasser. You cannot be inconsistent with your prayer for God is not inconsistent.

The Person of the Holy Trinity not being the same does not make at all their will inconsistent with each other because It is the one God. As Jesus willed that forgiveness of unrepentant sinners, then Thy will be done.

That's quite an explanation Julio.

I can't help thinking that if Christ had forgiven the unrepentant sinners who crucified Him, He would simply have said - I forgive you.

 

^^Like how Jesus taught the Lord's Prayer to us, He did it by praying to God the Father. Yet, it does not mean it is not His will that shall be done because of the truth of the Holy Trinity.

As I've stated, God is consistent. Ergo, we must be consistent with our prayer. If Jesus willed to forgive those unrepentant sinners who sinned against Him and He did that while suffering on the cross, then who are we not to forgive them? God bless.

By the way, while it is true that we have forgiven these unrepentant sinners, it does not mean that our forgiveness shall translate unto exculpation of their sins. Our will to forgive is only in regard to emulation of the goodness of God but it does not bind the justice of God and they are all expressions of His love.

It still makes no sense to me why God would require us to forgive someone before they repented if He doesn't forgive us until we repent...why He would expect more from us than Himself.

It does not matter if it makes no sense to you or it does. The important aspect of which is Jesus did it. Alignment to the ways of God is Catholicism.

Jesus did that as human while He was crucified and so we must.

As to why God would require to us forgive someone before they repented if He doesn't forgive us until we repent? Jesus did that while He was crucified. He willed that. So you and I must will that.  I see that as a form of humility and detachment from all His creations and henceforth an allignment to the will of God.

Quote from: Julio on March 14, 2023, 05:09:30 AMIt does not matter if it makes no sense to you or it does. The important aspect of which is Jesus did it. Alignment to the ways of God is Catholicism.

It absolutely does matter.  Catholicism must make sense.  It must be reasonable. 

You keep insisting that God requires us to forgive the unrepentant when He clearly doesn't forgive the unrepentant. 

This makes no sense and nonsense isn't Catholic.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 14, 2023, 08:38:34 AM

Quote from: Julio on March 14, 2023, 05:09:30 AMIt does not matter if it makes no sense to you or it does. The important aspect of which is Jesus did it. Alignment to the ways of God is Catholicism.

It absolutely does matter.  Catholicism must make sense.  It must be reasonable. 

You keep insisting that God requires us to forgive the unrepentant when He clearly doesn't forgive the unrepentant. 

This makes no sense and nonsense isn't Catholic.

I was going to say something very similar.  There is nothing in the Catholic Faith that doesn't make sense.  If we are to be perfect as Our Father in Heaven, then that means we do as He does...not more than He does.

I hope to discuss this with a solid, Traditional Catholic priest.

Quote from: Baylee on March 14, 2023, 08:54:04 AMI hope to discuss this with a solid, Traditional Catholic priest.

i'll be interested to hear what he says.

Quote from: Bernadette on March 14, 2023, 09:06:18 AM

Quote from: Baylee on March 14, 2023, 08:54:04 AMI hope to discuss this with a solid, Traditional Catholic priest.

i'll be interested to hear what he says.

I'll try to ask this coming Sunday (if I remember!)

Quote from: awkward customer on March 14, 2023, 08:38:34 AMIt absolutely does matter.  Catholicism must make sense.  It must be reasonable. 

You keep insisting that God requires us to forgive the unrepentant when He clearly doesn't forgive the unrepentant. 

This makes no sense and nonsense isn't Catholic.

With all due respect I see this as blasphemy. There is no doubt that those people that Jesus forgave while He was crucified were unrepentant. You and Baylee cannot be more Catholic than Jesus who made this Church.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas:

QuoteObjection 1: It would seem that the forgiveness of sin is not the effect of contrition. For God alone forgives sins. But we are somewhat the cause of contrition, since it is an act of our own. Therefore contrition is not the cause of forgiveness.

Objection 2: Further, contrition is an act of virtue. Now virtue follows the forgiveness of sin: because virtue and sin are not together in the soul. Therefore contrition is not the cause of the forgiveness of sin.

XXXX

Reply to Objection 1: God alone is the principal efficient cause of the forgiveness of sin: but the dispositive cause can be from us also, and likewise the sacramental cause, since the sacramental forms are words uttered by us, having an instrumental power of conferring grace whereby sins are forgiven.

Reply to Objection 2: The forgiveness of sin precedes virtue and the infusion of grace, in one way, and, in another, follows: and in so far as it follows, the act elicited by the virtue can be a cause of the forgiveness of sin.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.XP_Q5_A1.html

Verily, the forgiveness of sins preceded that virtue of contrition. God alone is the principal efficient cause of forgiveness and thus contrition belongs to him and not from you and me. Contrition is just disposition cause but forgiveness is truly in the hands of God.

You are trying to push reasonableness, whose reason is that? The will of God when He forgave those sins while He was crucified as man cannot be reversed. It must be obeyed the way Abraham tried to stab his son. The way Job suffered from the hands of the devil by permission of God. Would you call God unreasonable when He allowed an obedient man to suffer? I say detach from that worldly reasoning. May God bless us all.

Quote from: Baylee on March 14, 2023, 08:54:04 AMI was going to say something very similar.  There is nothing in the Catholic Faith that doesn't make sense.  If we are to be perfect as Our Father in Heaven, then that means we do as He does...not more than He does.

I hope to discuss this with a solid, Traditional Catholic priest.

Did Jesus forgave the sins of unrepentant sinners while He was crucified? His will and the will of Our Father in Heave is in unison. It cannot be inconsistent. Ergo, with all due respect, you cannot be better than Him. It is blasphemous to call the act of Jesus unreasonable.

Here is a very relevant article by Father William G. Most (1914 - 1999)


https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/father-forgive-them-12323

(More info about Fr. Most and a collection of his works: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/index.cfm. )

Quote from: Julio on March 14, 2023, 02:02:10 PM

Quote from: awkward customer on March 14, 2023, 08:38:34 AMIt absolutely does matter.  Catholicism must make sense.  It must be reasonable. 

You keep insisting that God requires us to forgive the unrepentant when He clearly doesn't forgive the unrepentant. 

This makes no sense and nonsense isn't Catholic.

With all due respect I see this as blasphemy. There is no doubt that those people that Jesus forgave while He was crucified were unrepentant. You and Baylee cannot be more Catholic than Jesus who made this Church.

Produce a quote from anywhere in Scripture or elsewhere which shows that God forgives those who do not repent.

Or retract your accusation.

Quote from: Non Nobis on March 14, 2023, 05:20:40 PMHere is a very relevant article by Father William G. Most (1914 - 1999)

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/father-forgive-them-12323

(More info about Fr. Most and a collection of his works: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/index.cfm. )

After reading this I can understand why there is so much confusion on this issue.  Fr Most says neither yes or no.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 14, 2023, 06:21:57 PMProduce a quote from anywhere in Scripture or elsewhere which shows that God forgives those who do not repent.

Or retract your accusation.

May I please to cite this:

"When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him and the criminals there, one on his right, the other on his left. Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." They divided his garments by casting lots." Luke (23:33&34)

Nothing is said about repentance before forgiveness was made by Jesus. That is the will of Jesus and His will is never inconsistent from the will of God the Father and the Holy Ghost. Thereby, I remain

[/quote]

Quote from: Non Nobis on March 14, 2023, 05:20:40 PMHere is a very relevant article by Father William G. Most (1914 - 1999)


https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/father-forgive-them-12323

(More info about Fr. Most and a collection of his works: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/index.cfm. )

Yes, this is it:

QuoteTherefore, Jesus did ask for the grace of forgiveness. His prayer was surely heard, for at the very moment he was painfully earning the very thing he asked for. And of course, since he knew he was/is God, he himself granted what he himself asked.

Truly, my point of blasphemy against the truth that Jesus did forgive these sinners sans their repentance.

Quote from: Julio on March 14, 2023, 11:26:56 PM

Quote from: awkward customer on March 14, 2023, 06:21:57 PMProduce a quote from anywhere in Scripture or elsewhere which shows that God forgives those who do not repent.

Or retract your accusation.

May I please to cite this:

"When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him and the criminals there, one on his right, the other on his left. Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." They divided his garments by casting lots." Luke (23:33&34)

I knew you were going to quote this.

I finally understand what's going on!!!!  At last.  There are indeed two types of forgiveness.  Traditional Catholic forgiveness and Vatican II forgiveness.  The argument on this thread is basically between these two versions.

This article from the Catholic World Report explains Vatican II forgiveness even better than Fr William G Most.  For example -

QuoteAll people desire the experience of forgiveness, so it comes as no surprise that every major religion offers that possibility. Christianity, however, makes the personal experience of it hinge on a believer's forgiveness of others: "Forgive us our trespasses – as we forgive those who trespass against us."

Having taught His disciples those words, Jesus now showed them a concrete application of the petition by this petition: "Father, forgive them," which presupposes that Christ the Man has already extended His forgiveness to His executioners and detractors.

What does it take to forgive? A unique mental attitude is required at the natural level; only an infusion of divine grace can elevate that sentiment to the supernatural level. Only then do we perceive that forgiveness is not just an option or a luxury but a necessity.

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/03/23/seven-last-words-from-the-cross-father-forgive-them/

The above article is reassuringly traditional when in comes to Sacramental Confession.  But it treats forgiveness outside the Confessional as something quite different, although without actually saying so.

According to the Vatican II version of forgiveness described in the article, forgiveness is a form of healing which you can only acquire by forgiving the unrepentant unconditionally. 

Forgiveness therefore depends on our ability to forgive not on the willingness of the offender to repent.  This shifts the burden of forgiveness from the offender onto the victim. 

This shift is an inversion, which is a bad sign, but there's more.  An "infusion of divine grace' elevates the "desire for forgiveness" to the "supernatural level".  That's when we realise that forgiveness is a "necessity".  Since we all desire the "experience of forgiveness", if we forgive unconditionally, some kind of supernatural effect will take hold of us and the necessary transformation will take place.  To achieve this, we have to forgive no matter what.  Because if we don't, we won't heal.  'Experience' and 'feelings' are the key here and to achieve Vatican II forgiveness we must have a "unique mental attitude"  which will allow God's Grace to transform us from being vengeful and revenge seeking into true followers of Christ on the Cross when He uttered those words.

The question then becomes - will the intended recipient of our forgiveness actually accept our forgiveness?  Note how the question is not - does the person have contrition?  The question is - will they accept our forgiveness?

I found a number of articles which discuss V2 forgiveness.  They all seem to make a distinction between Sacramental Confession with its necessity for repentance, penance, restitution and forgiveness, and day to day forgiveness, which is basically as described above.

I've only just discovered this, so there will be points I haven't covered.  But at least I now know that when I am arguing with Julio, I am actually arguing with Vatican II.

Now I understand, or am beginning to. 

Quote from: awkward customer on March 14, 2023, 06:21:57 PM

Quote from: Julio on March 14, 2023, 02:02:10 PM

Quote from: awkward customer on March 14, 2023, 08:38:34 AMIt absolutely does matter.  Catholicism must make sense.  It must be reasonable. 

You keep insisting that God requires us to forgive the unrepentant when He clearly doesn't forgive the unrepentant. 

This makes no sense and nonsense isn't Catholic.

With all due respect I see this as blasphemy. There is no doubt that those people that Jesus forgave while He was crucified were unrepentant. You and Baylee cannot be more Catholic than Jesus who made this Church.

Produce a quote from anywhere in Scripture or elsewhere which shows that God forgives those who do not repent.

Or retract your accusation.

And it is quite an accusation. 

To say that Jesus actually forgave the Jews (and others) by saying this on the Cross means that the Jews are in fact forgiven and do not need to accept Christ as their Savior nor the Catholic Faith as the Truth. 

Surely, that is not what the Church teaches?

But maybe Julio believes that?

I found another article written by Fr Most:

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=77

This I believe might be the answer:

In brief, then, He did ask that the grace of forgiveness be offered. That does not at all say that all to whom it was then being offered accepted it. Sadly, as St. Paul laments at length in Romans 9-11, most of them did not accept.

I think these words of Christ are the words wherein He verbalizes the purpose and meaning of His actions in that moment:  offering forgiveness to all.

Traditionally, forgiveness is always being offered. All anyone has to do to receive it is repent.

However, according to the Modernist theory of forgiveness being promoted on this thread, if we forgive the unrepentant, we will experience a healing infusion of Divine Grace which will take our will to forgive to a whole new spiritual level, resulting in our healing and transformation.  Except there's no 'if' allowed. We are obliged to forgive the unrepentant.
 
Therefore Modernist, Vatican II forgiveness depends on the victim being obliged to forgive rather than the aggressor being obliged to repent.

Which is quite a turnaround from the Traditional view.  It's an inversion really, which is a bad sign.

I knew something was going on.  I didn't realise until now that  Vatican II forgiveness even existed. 

Quote from: Baylee on March 15, 2023, 06:11:15 AMAnd it is quite an accusation. 

To say that Jesus actually forgave the Jews (and others) by saying this on the Cross means that the Jews are in fact forgiven and do not need to accept Christ as their Savior nor the Catholic Faith as the Truth. 

Surely, that is not what the Church teaches?

But maybe Julio believes that?

Jesus willed that forgiveness. He cannot be inconsistent to the will of God for Himself is among the person of the Holy Trinity.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 15, 2023, 03:05:25 AMI knew you were going to quote this.

Then you must know that no one whom Jesus forgave contrite or repent. Don't you?

Moreover, I do not know of your claims against me arguing for Vatincan II. My point is not that, because the  word of God  is from the Bible. 

You cannot change Luke 23:33&34. I therefore remain.

Quote from: Julio on March 15, 2023, 02:22:09 PM

Quote from: Baylee on March 15, 2023, 06:11:15 AMAnd it is quite an accusation. 

To say that Jesus actually forgave the Jews (and others) by saying this on the Cross means that the Jews are in fact forgiven and do not need to accept Christ as their Savior nor the Catholic Faith as the Truth. 

Surely, that is not what the Church teaches?

But maybe Julio believes that?

Jesus willed that forgiveness. He cannot be inconsistent to the will of God for Himself is among the person of the Holy Trinity.

So the Jews are forgiven Julio?

Quote from: awkward customer on March 15, 2023, 01:33:04 PMTraditionally, forgiveness is always being offered. All anyone has to do to receive it is repent.

However, according to the Modernist theory of forgiveness being promoted on this thread, if we forgive the unrepentant, we will experience a healing infusion of Divine Grace which will take our will to forgive to a whole new spiritual level, resulting in our healing and transformation.  Except there's no 'if' allowed. We are obliged to forgive the unrepentant.
 
Therefore Modernist, Vatican II forgiveness depends on the victim being obliged to forgive rather than the aggressor being obliged to repent.

Which is quite a turnaround from the Traditional view.  It's an inversion really, which is a bad sign.

I knew something was going on.  I didn't realise until now that  Vatican II forgiveness even existed. 

No modernist ever existed while Jesus was crucified. He uttered the words and He willed it.

Quote from: Baylee on March 15, 2023, 02:26:45 PMSo the Jews are forgiven Julio?

Only those that Jesus addressed at that moment, I submit. Remember not all of the people who were present were Jews. Those excutors of Jesus were Romans. Don't you know that?

Quote from: Julio on March 15, 2023, 02:29:36 PM

Quote from: Baylee on March 15, 2023, 02:26:45 PMSo the Jews are forgiven Julio?

Only those that Jesus addressed at that moment, I submit. Remember not all of the people who were present were Jews. Those excutors of Jesus were Romans. Don't you know that?

Yes, I knew that Julio.

I still hold that there was an offer of forgiveness to them and to all, not actual forgiveness.  I am still looking for Church teaching that He ACTUALLY gave them special forgiveness meanwhile all those other Jews and non-Jews that He wasn't addressing (?) are not forgiven? 

Quote from: awkward customer on March 13, 2023, 04:49:38 AMThat's quite an explanation Julio.

I can't help thinking that if Christ had forgiven the unrepentant sinners who crucified Him, He would simply have said - I forgive you.

 

Yes, contrast it with what He says to the "good thief".

Quote from: Baylee on March 15, 2023, 06:11:15 AMTo say that Jesus actually forgave the Jews (and others) by saying this on the Cross means that the Jews are in fact forgiven and do not need to accept Christ as their Savior nor the Catholic Faith as the Truth. 

Similarly, if we are obliged to forgive the unrepentant, and they accept our forgiveness, do they still need to repent? Why would they, if they are already forgiven?

I think a new theology of forgiveness has been created for a narcissistic age.  Narcissists cannot, will not, accept responsibility for their actions.  In a narcissistic age like ours, people don't want to be held accountable.  So now they have a new theology of forgiveness which means they don't have to be.  They are to be forgiven whether they are repentant or not.

If Christ's words on the Cross don't mean what the proponents of Vatican II forgiveness insist they mean, then the new theology falls apart.

Quote from: Baylee on March 15, 2023, 02:40:48 PMYes, I knew that Julio.

I still hold that there was an offer of forgiveness to them and to all, not actual forgiveness.  I am still looking for Church teaching that He ACTUALLY gave them special forgiveness meanwhile all those other Jews and non-Jews that He wasn't addressing (?) are not forgiven? 

Precisely everyone who were there who participated in His execution in that wooden cross and all those who were present for whatever intention were those that Jesus addressed that forgiveness. Many must be unrepentant and Jesus never demanded their contrition. Nothing is written about that. Nothing is provided in the Tradition of the Catholic Church about their contrition at that time. Hence, you cannot find any teaching about that. One thing is for sure, Jesus forgave and He did not demand for their contrition at that time. It was His will at that moment and His will is in unity of the Holy Trinity.

Any claim that Jesus demanded contrition or did not forgive these non-repentant sinners during that time is blasphemous because there was no record of that. He willed the forgiveness and so it must be done. He cannot be inconsistent.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 15, 2023, 04:24:09 PM

Quote from: Baylee on March 15, 2023, 06:11:15 AMTo say that Jesus actually forgave the Jews (and others) by saying this on the Cross means that the Jews are in fact forgiven and do not need to accept Christ as their Savior nor the Catholic Faith as the Truth. 

Similarly, if we are obliged to forgive the unrepentant, and they accept our forgiveness, do they still need to repent? Why would they, if they are already forgiven?

I think a new theology of forgiveness has been created for a narcissistic age.  Narcissists cannot, will not, accept responsibility for their actions.  In a narcissistic age like ours, people don't want to be held accountable.  So now they have a new theology of forgiveness which means they don't have to be.  They are to be forgiven whether they are repentant or not.

If Christ's words on the Cross don't mean what the proponents of Vatican II forgiveness insist they mean, then the new theology falls apart.

Your forgiveness will never bind God. Your will is not the will of God. They must repent. Your forgiveness is an expression of your goodness and unity with how Jesus did it while crucified.

Jesus is God so His will to forgive them binds God being one of the Person of the Holy Trinity. He is God you are not.

Nothing is connected to any new theology about that whatsoever and I am not even aware of that. It is so basic.

Quote from: Baylee on March 15, 2023, 03:47:52 PM

Quote from: awkward customer on March 13, 2023, 04:49:38 AMThat's quite an explanation Julio.

I can't help thinking that if Christ had forgiven the unrepentant sinners who crucified Him, He would simply have said - I forgive you.

 

Yes, contrast it with what He says to the "good thief".

Why would you even mix that up with what He did to the good thief? Every act of God is a different will coming from Him. You don't interpret what is in His mind. You only believe and obey for the love of God. He willed that forgiveness and so Thy will be done.

Quote from: Julio on March 15, 2023, 11:44:32 PM

Quote from: Baylee on March 15, 2023, 03:47:52 PM

Quote from: awkward customer on March 13, 2023, 04:49:38 AMThat's quite an explanation Julio.

I can't help thinking that if Christ had forgiven the unrepentant sinners who crucified Him, He would simply have said - I forgive you.

 

Yes, contrast it with what He says to the "good thief".

Why would you even mix that up with what He did to the good thief? Every act of God is a different will coming from Him. You don't interpret what is in His mind. You only believe and obey for the love of God. He willed that forgiveness and so Thy will be done.

First let's be really clear here Julio.  I am trying to better understand what appear to be differences. Differences do not necessarily mean God is inconsistent. I am NOT saying God is inconsistent...so you can quit telling me I'm blasphemous. 

Those differences do not mean God is inconsistent.  Those differences could be due to our understanding. And that could mean your understanding is the wrong one (or mine). Protestants look to that passage where Christ says "Father forgive them.." and assert there is no need for Confession. And yet the Church teaches WE need to confess our sins before Forgiveness.

There should be teaching on this verse.  It is odd that the Douay Rheims Bible has no commentary on this verse. I am going to try to find Church teaching (preferably well before Vatican 2) because that is what Catholics do.  They don't interpret Bible verses.

I brought up the good thief because you said Jesus is one with the Father.  That is true.  But then with the good thief he doesn't involve/ask the Father when He informs him he will be in Paradise.

I contend there is more to this verse. However I'm making it very clear that I will agree with Church teaching and am not here to push anything against it.

 

Quote from: Baylee on March 16, 2023, 12:28:32 AMProtestants look to that passage where Christ says "Father forgive them.." and assert there is no need for Confession.

And the Vatican II theologians take the same passage and assert that we are obliged to forgive the unrepentant.

Coincidence? 

Perhaps when Julio makes accusations of blasphemy, he doesn't realise who the blasphemer really is.

Father forgive him, for he knows not what he does.

So, this is what I have found in my research.  It does appear that we are to forgive others regardless of repentance.  However, the following teachings certainly help guide us and help our confessors/pastors to guide us when dealing with this issue, especially for those of us who may be finding it very difficult to follow - See the last three sections cited here in the Catechism of Trent. 

The Moral Theology entries below the Catechism sections help to further define forgiveness and show that forgiveness and reconciliation isn't all black and white. There are gray areas depending upon the circumstances.

I hope that this information helps others as it has helped me.


The Catechism of the Council of Trent:

"As we Forgive our Debtors"

The word as may be understood in two senses. It may be taken as having the force of a comparison, meaning that we beg of God to pardon us our sins, just as we pardon the wrongs and contumelies which we receive from those by whom we have been injured. It may also be understood as denoting a condition, and in this sense Christ the Lord interprets that formula. If, He says, you forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will also forgive you your offences; but if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your sins.

Either sense, however, equally contains the necessity of forgiveness, intimating, as it does that, if we desire that God should grant us the pardon of our offences, we ourselves must pardon those from whom we have received injury; for so rigorously does God exact from us forgetfulness of injuries and mutual affection and love, that He rejects and despises the gifts and sacrifices of those who are not reconciled to one another.

Necessity Of Forgiveness

Even the law of nature requires that we conduct ourselves towards others as we would have them conduct themselves towards us; hence he would be most impudent who would ask of God the pardon of his own offences while he continued to cherish enmity against his neighbour.


Those, therefore, on whom injuries have been inflicted, should be ready and willing to pardon, urged to it as they are by this form of prayer, and by the command of God in St. Luke: If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him; and if he repent, forgive him; and if he sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, "I repent," forgive him. In the Gospel of St. Matthew we read: Love your enemies; and the Apostle, and before him Solomon wrote: If thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink; and finally we read in the Gospel of St. Mark: When you shall stand to pray, forgive if you have anything against any man; that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your sins.

Reasons For Forgiveness

But since, on account of the corruption of nature, there is nothing to which man brings himself more reluctantly than to the pardon of injuries, let pastors exert all the powers and resources of their minds to change and bend the dispositions of the faithful to this mildness and mercy so necessary to a Christian. Let them dwell on those passages of Scripture in which we hear God commanding to pardon enemies.

Let them also insist on this certain truth, that one of the surest signs that men are children of God is their willingness to forgive injuries and sincerely love their enemies; for in loving our enemies there shines forth in us some likeness to God our Father, who, by the death of His Son, ransomed from everlasting perdition and reconciled to Himself the human race, which before was most unfriendly and hostile to Him.

Let the close of this exhortation and injunction be the command of Christ the Lord, which, without utter disgrace and ruin, we cannot refuse to obey: Pray for them that persecute and calumniate you; that you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven.

This Petition Should Not be Neglected

But in this matter no ordinary prudence is required on the part of the pastor, lest, knowing the difficulty and necessity of this precept, anyone despair of salvation.

Those Unable To Forget Injuries

There are those who, aware that they ought to bury injuries in voluntary oblivion and ought to love those that injure them, desire to do so, and do so as far as they are able, but feel that they cannot efface from their mind all recollection of injuries. For there lurk in the mind some remains of private grudge, in consequence of which such persons are disturbed by misgivings of conscience, fearing that they have not in simplicity and frankness laid aside their enmities and consequently do not obey the command of God.

Here, therefore, the pastor should explain the contrary desires of the flesh and of the spirit; that the former is prone to revenge, the latter ready to pardon; that hence a continual struggle and conflict goes on between them. Wherefore he should point out that although the appetites of corrupt nature are ever opposing and rebelling against reason, we are not on this account to be uneasy regarding salvation, provided the spirit persevere in the duty and disposition of forgiving injuries and of loving our neighbour.

Those Who Do Not Love Their Enemies

There may be some who, because they have not yet been able to bring themselves to forget injuries and to love their enemies, are consequently deterred by the condition contained in this Petition from making use of the Lord's Prayer. To remove from their minds this pernicious error, the pastor should adduce the two following considerations.

(In the first place), whoever belongs to the number of the faithful, offers this prayer in the name of the entire Church, in which there must necessarily be some pious persons who have forgiven their debtors the debts here mentioned.

Secondly, when we ask this favour from God, we also ask for whatever cooperation with the Petition is necessary on our part in order to obtain the object of our prayer. Thus we ask the pardon of our sins and the gift of true repentance; we pray for the grace of inward sorrow; we beg that we may be able to abhor our sins, and confess them truly and piously to the priest. Since, then, it is necessary for us to forgive those who have inflicted on us any loss or injury, when we ask pardon of God we beg of Him at the same time to grant us grace to be reconciled to those against whom we harbour hatred.

Those, therefore, who are troubled by that groundless and perverse fear, that by this prayer they provoke still more the wrath of God, should be undeceived and should be exhorted to make frequent use of a prayer in which they beseech God our Father to grant them the disposition to forgive those who have injured them and to love their enemies.

McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology:

1198. Reconciliation with enemies is necessary, in order that peace may be maintained. It includes: (a) internally, the putting away of thoughts and feelings contrary to concord; (b) externally, signs of renewed charity, if there has been an open breach.

1199. The duty of reconciliation does not necessitate the forgiveness of every kind of wrong suffered from an enemy—that is, it does not always oblige one freely to remit the consequences of an enemy's acts. There are three kinds of wrong: (a) offenses, which are such contradictions offered to the will of another as do not trespass on any strict right or occasion any damage. Example: Balbus, who is in great distress, asks his friend Titus to secure employment for him. Titus could easily do this favor, but he refuses; (b) injuries, which are violations of the strict right of another, but without damage. Example: Claudia addresses Caia in very disrespectful language when no witnesses are present; (c) damages, which are the taking from another of what is his, or harm done to him as regards his soul, his life, his fame, or his fortune. Examples are theft, scandal, assault and slander.

1200. Whether an offender asks pardon or not, one is obliged to forgive the offense—that is, to put aside all aversion, indignation and hatred: "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us" (Matt., vi. 12). But, granting that one desires salvation for the offender as for others, shows the common signs of charity, and is not prompted by hatred, the following are not required: (a) that one so pardon the offense as to take the offender back to the same special friendship as may have existed before; (b) that one overlook an injury so as not to require satisfaction (and hence, without acting against charity, Gaia may insist on an apology from Claudia for the disrespectful language used by the latter); and (c) that one renounce restitution or reparation for damage done one. No one is obliged to give to another what is one's own, and, if there is no other way of securing one's rights, one may have recourse to court. If the result of prosecution will be punishment of the offender rather than restitution (as in case of libel or slander), it is not uncharitable to prosecute the offender, if one's motive is the fulfillment of justice, the prevention of the same wrong to others, or the honor of one's family (Lev., xix. 17).

1201. There are cases, however, in which charity requires one to forgive a debt of satisfaction or restitution, namely, when this would impose too heavy a burden on the offender, compared with the benefit that would be derived therefrom. (a) Thus, restitution should not be insisted on, when the offender is repentant and can ill afford to pay the debt, and the party offended can easily get along without the payment. (b) Punishment should not be insisted on, if the harm done the offender or his family will be out of proportion to any good that may result. (c) Prosecution should not be used, if a wrong can be amicably adjusted out of court (I Cor., vi. 1).

1202. Who should make the advances towards reconciliation after a rupture of charitable relations? (a) If only one party was the offender, he should normally make the first move towards reconciliation. It is of counsel, but not of precept, that the innocent party ask for reconciliation, unless the circumstances require that he should do so, as when the offended party can much more easily make the advances, or when great scandal will arise, or when the offender will become hardened in hate and lose his soul, if the party offended does not make efforts for peace. (b) If both parties were offenders, he who offended more seriously should make the advances. (c) If both offended equally, he who was first to disturb the peace should also be first to work for its restoration. (d) If it does not appear which of the parties was more to blame in any of the foregoing ways, both are equally bound.

1203. The manner of seeking reconciliation is as follows: (a) Reconciliation can be sought either in person, or through an intermediary who is a friend to both parties. (b) It can be sought either explicitly (by expressing regret and asking pardon), or implicitly (by a friendly conversation or favors shown). Generally speaking, an inferior (e.g., a child) should explicitly request reconciliation with a superior (e.g., a parent); but it will suffice for a superior to seek forgiveness from an inferior implicitly.

1204. The time for seeking reconciliation is the earliest possible moment: "If thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath anything against thee, leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother, and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift" (Matt, v. 23, 24). (a) Thus, internal reconciliation (i.e., repentance on the part of the offender and forgiveness on the part of the one offended) should not be delayed, and should precede any sacred action, such as offering a gift to God, if this latter is to be acceptable and meritorious. (b) External reconciliation (i.e., asking pardon and making satisfaction) and the manifestation of forgiveness should be attended to as soon as the circumstances of time and place permit. The resolve to be reconciled externally is included in internal reconciliation, but prudence dictates that one wait for the suitable occasion, lest precipitation make matters worse.

Priests should preach on this topic more often. It's so important.

Quote from: Baylee on March 16, 2023, 01:49:47 PM1200. Whether an offender asks pardon or not, one is obliged to forgive the offense—that is, to put aside all aversion, indignation and hatred: "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us" (Matt., vi. 12). But, granting that one desires salvation for the offender as for others, shows the common signs of charity, and is not prompted by hatred, the following are not required: (a) that one so pardon the offense as to take the offender back to the same special friendship as may have existed before; (b) that one overlook an injury so as not to require satisfaction (and hence, without acting against charity, Gaia may insist on an apology from Claudia for the disrespectful language used by the latter); and (c) that one renounce restitution or reparation for damage done one. No one is obliged to give to another what is one's own, and, if there is no other way of securing one's rights, one may have recourse to court. If the result of prosecution will be punishment of the offender rather than restitution (as in case of libel or slander), it is not uncharitable to prosecute the offender, if one's motive is the fulfillment of justice, the prevention of the same wrong to others, or the honor of one's family (Lev., xix. 17).

We definitely do need priests to preach more on this subject.  Apparently we must forgive, as you say.  But having forgiven, we are then free to take the person to court. 

QuoteThe Moral Theology entries below the Catechism sections help to further define forgiveness and show that forgiveness and reconciliation isn't all black and white. There are gray areas depending upon the circumstances.

There certainly are.  I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of forgiving someone then suing them.  Obviously I'm not talking about criminal law here, only civil law.

So there are two kinds of forgiveness after all, which I have been arguing against on this thread.  Because forgiving someone and then being free to sue them in court has never seemed like forgiveness to me.  But according to the Catechism of the Council of Trent, it is forgiveness.  It is the second type of forgiveness which requires putting aside 'all aversion, indignation and hatred', which I have argued is charity, not forgiveness.  I thought that forgiving someone meant forgetting the harm done, including debt.  I also thought it meant that any friendship or relationship should carry on as before.

I still believe that this teaching can be used as a weapon by malicious people, and often is, because the subleties are not well understood, least of all by me.  So There definitely is a need for more priests to preach on this subject.   

QuoteI thought that forgiving someone meant forgetting the harm done, including debt.  I also thought it meant that any friendship or relationship should carry on as before.
 

I think that this is a common misconception.

Quote from: Baylee on March 16, 2023, 12:28:32 AMFirst let's be really clear here Julio.  I am trying to better understand what appear to be differences. Differences do not necessarily mean God is inconsistent. I am NOT saying God is inconsistent...so you can quit telling me I'm blasphemous. 

Those differences do not mean God is inconsistent.  Those differences could be due to our understanding. And that could mean your understanding is the wrong one (or mine). Protestants look to that passage where Christ says "Father forgive them.." and assert there is no need for Confession. And yet the Church teaches WE need to confess our sins before Forgiveness.

There should be teaching on this verse.  It is odd that the Douay Rheims Bible has no commentary on this verse. I am going to try to find Church teaching (preferably well before Vatican 2) because that is what Catholics do.  They don't interpret Bible verses.

I brought up the good thief because you said Jesus is one with the Father.  That is true.  But then with the good thief he doesn't involve/ask the Father when He informs him he will be in Paradise.

I contend there is more to this verse. However I'm making it very clear that I will agree with Church teaching and am not here to push anything against it.

I am not at all delving unto the Protestant theory or take of forgiveness. My only point is so simple, Jesus, both as God and man forgave the unrepentant sinners while He was crucified. It is written in the Bible and it is the truth. Any claim against that is blasphemous.

As to the situation of the good thief, then that was His will to do it. But it does not at all change the fact that He willed the forgiveness of those unrepentant sinners while Jesus was crucified. Jesus is consistent with the will of the Holy Trinity. I remain

Quote from: awkward customer on March 16, 2023, 03:29:09 AMAnd the Vatican II theologians take the same passage and assert that we are obliged to forgive the unrepentant.

Coincidence? 

Perhaps when Julio makes accusations of blasphemy, he doesn't realise who the blasphemer really is.

Father forgive him, for he knows not what he does.

Indeed, those were the words spoken by Jesus. Interpretation against that that He did not will the forgiveness of those sinners who did not ask for repentance must be blasphemos. It is clear and unquivocal words that was spoken by God. It is what it is.

That being the act of Jesus as man should be emulated by His believers. It does not mean the will of His believers must bind God.

Quote from: Bernadette on March 16, 2023, 02:30:34 PMPriests should preach on this topic more often. It's so important.

This is part of our chastisement today. The pain of the inability to understand by reason of poor cathechism must be offered as our sacrifice to God. Our Lady of Fatima did say that errors of Russia shall be spread if Russia shall not be consecrated. That was not accomplished in due time and right now we know that communist ideology is creeping even inside the doors of our Church. At any rate God is going to triumph. We pray that we be part of that victory of Jesus as He sent Our Lady to inform His people. I submit that by humbly experiencing this pain in the name of obedience to the will of God, we can take part in His Glory.

Quote from: Julio on March 16, 2023, 05:34:36 PMIndeed, those were the words spoken by Jesus. Interpretation against that that He did not will the forgiveness of those sinners who did not ask for repentance must be blasphemos. 

I didn't say that Christ didn't will the forgiveness of those sinners.  That is your interpretation.

I said that Christ didn't forgive them because they were unrepentant and that instead He prayed to the Father for their forgiveness.  If He prayed to the Father for their forgiveness, this assumes that He wanted them to be forgiven.

You have no right to accuse anyone of blasphemy.  You keep referring to the same passage that Protestants have used to negate the need for Confession.  There is a definite trend in the world and in the Church to deny the need for any form of repentance at all when the subject of forgiveness arises.  I believe this passage, and others,  need to be considered more carefully than you are doing.

 

Quote from: awkward customer on March 16, 2023, 06:22:34 PM

Quote from: Julio on March 16, 2023, 05:34:36 PMIndeed, those were the words spoken by Jesus. Interpretation against that that He did not will the forgiveness of those sinners who did not ask for repentance must be blasphemos. 

I didn't say that Christ didn't will the forgiveness of those sinners.  That is your interpretation.

I said that Christ didn't forgive them because they were unrepentant and that instead He prayed to the Father for their forgiveness.  If He prayed to the Father for their forgiveness, this assumes that He wanted them to be forgiven.

You have no right to accuse anyone of blasphemy.  You keep referring to the same passage that Protestants have used to negate the need for Confession.  There is a definite trend in the world and in the Church to deny the need for any form of repentance at all when the subject of forgiveness arises.  I believe this passage, and others,  need to be considered more carefully than you are doing.

With all due respect, the will of Jesus to ask for God the Father by praying to forgive these unrepentant sinners was at that moment the will of God. It was truly the will of the Holy Trinity. I remain my position that any claim against that is blasphemous.

It does not assume anything, it is His will. The will of God.

^^In addition it is wrong for you to say that unrepentant sinners must not be forgiven. You repeatedly tried to say that was right. It was a so grave error that puts ones soul in great peril of going to hell. You must be careful next time.

Quote from: Julio on March 16, 2023, 06:28:42 PM^^In addition it is wrong for you to say that unrepentant sinners must not be forgiven. You repeatedly tried to say that was right. It was a so grave error that puts ones soul in great peril of going to hell. You must be careful next time.

Stop twisting my words.  I did not say "must not" be forgiven.

I had no idea that we could forgive someone and still sue them in court.  But that's what the Catechism of Trent says.  So it must be true.

So, I am obliged to forgive you for twisting my words.  But I can put you on ignore if I choose to and this would still constitute forgiveness.

It seems that forgiveness is a walk in the park compared to what I thought it was.

If Christ forgave the unrepentant sinners who crucified Him, I took this to mean that they got to Heaven.

Did they get to Heaven?





 



 

And what about the unrepentant thief?

If the unrepentant sinners who crucified Christ were forgiven by God the Father and went to Heaven despite being unrepentant, why not the unrepentant thief.

Quote from: Bernadette on March 16, 2023, 04:11:50 PM

QuoteI thought that forgiving someone meant forgetting the harm done, including debt.  I also thought it meant that any friendship or relationship should carry on as before.
 

I think that this is a common misconception.

You're right, and people assume, as I did, that if Christ forgave the unrepentant sinners who crucified Him, then they must have got to Heaven.   

But if the unrepentant can get to Heaven, it follows that there's no real need for repentance, or Confession, as the Protestants insist.  Because Christ forgave the unrepentants who crucified Him so He's bound to forgive us.   My way out of this was to insist that Christ asked God the Father to forgive them instead.

And then there's the question - do the unrepentant sinners remain unrepentant once they get to Heaven? 

It's a problem.

 

Quote from: Julio on March 16, 2023, 05:34:36 PM

Quote from: awkward customer on March 16, 2023, 03:29:09 AMAnd the Vatican II theologians take the same passage and assert that we are obliged to forgive the unrepentant.

Coincidence? 

Perhaps when Julio makes accusations of blasphemy, he doesn't realise who the blasphemer really is.

Father forgive him, for he knows not what he does.

Indeed, those were the words spoken by Jesus. Interpretation against that that He did not will the forgiveness of those sinners who did not ask for repentance must be blasphemos. It is clear and unquivocal words that was spoken by God. It is what it is.

That being the act of Jesus as man should be emulated by His believers. It does not mean the will of His believers must bind God.

Julio, we all know that Bible verses aren't always what they appear to be. They aren't always obvious and unequivocal.  That is why Catholics typically check into Church teaching to see what the Church's interpretation is of them. Good Catholics can question bible verses so long as they remain open to what the Church teaches.  You have repeatedly judged your fellow Catholics here as blasphemers. 

And even though both of us have since changed our views (after consulting Church teaching and not taking Julio's word for it, mind you), you have not let up.  I find it interesting that you didn't bother to respond to the post I made that delineated the Church teaching which also included gray areas (your lack of response leads me to believe that you don't agree that there even could be gray areas; it also leads me to believe that your idea of forgiveness does not line up with what the Church actually teaches).

Quote from: awkward customer on March 17, 2023, 03:50:23 AM

Quote from: Julio on March 16, 2023, 06:28:42 PM^^In addition it is wrong for you to say that unrepentant sinners must not be forgiven. You repeatedly tried to say that was right. It was a so grave error that puts ones soul in great peril of going to hell. You must be careful next time.

Stop twisting my words.  I did not say "must not" be forgiven.

I had no idea that we could forgive someone and still sue them in court.  But that's what the Catechism of Trent says.  So it must be true.

So, I am obliged to forgive you for twisting my words.  But I can put you on ignore if I choose to and this would still constitute forgiveness.

It seems that forgiveness is a walk in the park compared to what I thought it was.

Yes, you never said that.  Nor have I.  The issue was always whether we must forgive others even if they do not ask for forgiveness. The issue was always what was meant by "forgiveness". Interestingly enough the OP was about accepting an apology.  LOL

Quote from: awkward customer on March 15, 2023, 04:24:09 PM

Quote from: Baylee on March 15, 2023, 06:11:15 AMTo say that Jesus actually forgave the Jews (and others) by saying this on the Cross means that the Jews are in fact forgiven and do not need to accept Christ as their Savior nor the Catholic Faith as the Truth. 

Similarly, if we are obliged to forgive the unrepentant, and they accept our forgiveness, do they still need to repent? Why would they, if they are already forgiven?

I think a new theology of forgiveness has been created for a narcissistic age.  Narcissists cannot, will not, accept responsibility for their actions.  In a narcissistic age like ours, people don't want to be held accountable.  So now they have a new theology of forgiveness which means they don't have to be.  They are to be forgiven whether they are repentant or not.

If Christ's words on the Cross don't mean what the proponents of Vatican II forgiveness insist they mean, then the new theology falls apart.

I typically forgive most injuries/people in time.  I am currently dealing with terrible things done and said by a couple of narcissists in the family...who we know will never apologize or see any wrongdoing on their parts. It is very difficult to truly let go of the anger.   

Quote from: Baylee on March 17, 2023, 07:23:27 AMI typically forgive most injuries/people in time.  I am currently dealing with terrible things done and said by a couple of narcissists in the family...who we know will never apologize or see any wrongdoing on their parts. It is very difficult to truly let go of the anger.   

Narcissists in the family - good luck.

I feel obliged to forgive those who ask for forgiveness, and I try to forgive those who don't. Not always easy. If I'm messing up, I guess God will have to put it on my purgatory tab. Ultimately, I wouldn't sweat the details too much though. God knows when you're actually trying to do good and He's full of mercy if you ask.

Helluva thread for such a simple question.

Quote from: Baylee on March 17, 2023, 06:28:58 AMJulio, we all know that Bible verses aren't always what they appear to be. They aren't always obvious and unequivocal.  That is why Catholics typically check into Church teaching to see what the Church's interpretation is of them. Good Catholics can question bible verses so long as they remain open to what the Church teaches.  You have repeatedly judged your fellow Catholics here as blasphemers. 

And even though both of us have since changed our views (after consulting Church teaching and not taking Julio's word for it, mind you), you have not let up.  I find it interesting that you didn't bother to respond to the post I made that delineated the Church teaching which also included gray areas (your lack of response leads me to believe that you don't agree that there even could be gray areas; it also leads me to believe that your idea of forgiveness does not line up with what the Church actually teaches).

I need not respond to it because nothing is to be fixed in the truth.

Again, what is provided for in the Bible is the truth. Speaking against that is blasphemous.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 17, 2023, 03:50:23 AMStop twisting my words.  I did not say "must not" be forgiven.

I had no idea that we could forgive someone and still sue them in court.  But that's what the Catechism of Trent says.  So it must be true.

So, I am obliged to forgive you for twisting my words.  But I can put you on ignore if I choose to and this would still constitute forgiveness.

It seems that forgiveness is a walk in the park compared to what I thought it was.

You stated that no one must forgive unrepentat sinners:

Quote from: awkward customer on February 06, 2023, 04:11:55 AM

Quote from: Julio on February 05, 2023, 06:08:18 PMThis is what I mean by we must forgive anyone who offend us even if they do not hear us. That is not to communicate to them but to comply with this command of God:

Nonsense.  God does not forgive the unrepentant.  If He did, Hell would be empty.  Is Hell empty?  No.  Who is in Hell?  The unrepentant.

Your version of forgiveness only works if you re-write Matthew 18, which clearly states that we are to treat those who won't 'hear us' - the unrepentant - as publicans and tax collectors. 

Are you really saying that you know better than Matthew 18?

^^That kind of frame of mind can bring ones soul to hell.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 17, 2023, 04:28:54 AMAnd what about the unrepentant thief?

If the unrepentant sinners who crucified Christ were forgiven by God the Father and went to Heaven despite being unrepentant, why not the unrepentant thief.

God did not will that. It does not translate one who is offended or trespassed should not forgive the unrepentant.

Quote from: Baylee on March 17, 2023, 06:34:25 AMYes, you never said that.  Nor have I.  The issue was always whether we must forgive others even if they do not ask for forgiveness. The issue was always what was meant by "forgiveness". Interestingly enough the OP was about accepting an apology.  LOL

No, you said that:

Quote from: Baylee on March 07, 2023, 01:39:11 PMI had a thought about the Jews.  Our Lord does not forgive them UNTIL they repent and convert.  The more I think on this, I don't see where Our Lord forgives without repentance.  And if that is the case, why would Our Lord expect more from us?

Quote from: awkward customer on March 17, 2023, 06:24:27 AMYou're right, and people assume, as I did, that if Christ forgave the unrepentant sinners who crucified Him, then they must have got to Heaven.   

But if the unrepentant can get to Heaven, it follows that there's no real need for repentance, or Confession, as the Protestants insist.  Because Christ forgave the unrepentants who crucified Him so He's bound to forgive us.   My way out of this was to insist that Christ asked God the Father to forgive them instead.

And then there's the question - do the unrepentant sinners remain unrepentant once they get to Heaven? 

It's a problem.

 

The fountain of mercy is God. It does not mean that God forgave those unrepentant sinners who crucified Him then He is bound to forgive us. That is not the case. It is breaching His will.

The fact remains we must forgive all sinners even the unrepentant and such must be submitted to His will. Judgment is in the hands of God for as giver He is love.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 17, 2023, 03:56:24 AMIf Christ forgave the unrepentant sinners who crucified Him, I took this to mean that they got to Heaven.

Did they get to Heaven?

That is your problem because you assume. Just look at the fact that God forgave them. He forgave the unrepentant sinners contrary to what you kept on stating previously. As to whether or not they were allowed to go to Heaven is in the hands of God. Assumption is dangerous.

Quote from: Julio on March 18, 2023, 07:30:13 AM^^That kind of frame of mind can bring ones soul to hell.

Judge not, lest ye be judged ...

Quote from: Julio on March 18, 2023, 07:51:20 AM

Quote from: awkward customer on March 17, 2023, 03:56:24 AMIf Christ forgave the unrepentant sinners who crucified Him, I took this to mean that they got to Heaven.

Did they get to Heaven?

That is your problem because you assume. Just look at the fact that God forgave them. He forgave the unrepentant sinners contrary to what you kept on stating previously. As to whether or not they were allowed to go to Heaven is in the hands of God. Assumption is dangerous.

In Post 151 of this thread, you cited Christ's words on the Cross as evidence that God forgives unrepentant sinners.

Why, then, is it dangerous to assume that the unrepentant sinners responsible for the Crucifixion are in Heaven? 

Is it your opinion that there are unrepentant sinners in Heaven?
 
You say the answer is in "the hands of God".   Does that mean you don't know?

I made a mistake earlier about this quote.
   

Quote1200. Whether an offender asks pardon or not, one is obliged to forgive the offense—that is, to put aside all aversion, indignation and hatred:

It isn't from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.  It's from 'Moral Theology', by McHugh and Callan.

See Post 171.

From the Catechism of Trent.

QuoteNecessity Of Forgiveness

...... Those, therefore, on whom injuries have been inflicted, should be ready and willing to pardon, urged to it as they are by this form of prayer[The Our Father], and by the command of God in St. Luke: If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him; and if he repent, forgive him; and if he sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, "I repent," forgive him.

So that's two Theology Manuals, the other being Heribert Jone, which mandate forgiveness of the unrepentant, albeit with certain disclaimers.

But the Catechism of Trent doesn't?  I have a copy and will go on looking looking.   

Dear Akward,
I was listening to this short Father Ripperger video and I thought of the struggle you're experiencing. He explains the role of repentence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acuLjX2bNiE

Julio, why do you continue to double down on your criticisms, accusations and judgments when both awkward customer and I have agreed that Church teaching teaches us to forgive others even if they do not ask for forgiveness?  We find it a very hard teaching, but we accept it.  After I posted Chruch teaching in detail, you would think you would give me some credit for admitting I was wrong. 

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt in that you're just not really understanding our posts, but I'm leaning more towards....how about you lay off? 

Of course, I forgive you,  ;)  but I sense that I will be putting you on ignore fairly soon.....and Church teaching allows me to do that.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 18, 2023, 10:50:57 AMFrom the Catechism of Trent.

QuoteNecessity Of Forgiveness

...... Those, therefore, on whom injuries have been inflicted, should be ready and willing to pardon, urged to it as they are by this form of prayer[The Our Father], and by the command of God in St. Luke: If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him; and if he repent, forgive him; and if he sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, "I repent," forgive him.

So that's two Theology Manuals, the other being Heribert Jone, which mandate forgiveness of the unrepentant, albeit with certain disclaimers.

But the Catechism of Trent doesn't?  I have a copy and will go on looking looking.   

The end of that same paragraph in the Catechism of Trent also says:

and finally we read in the Gospel of St. Mark: When you shall stand to pray, forgive if you have anything against any man; that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your sins.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 18, 2023, 09:19:10 AMIn Post 151 of this thread, you cited Christ's words on the Cross as evidence that God forgives unrepentant sinners.

Why, then, is it dangerous to assume that the unrepentant sinners responsible for the Crucifixion are in Heaven? 

Is it your opinion that there are unrepentant sinners in Heaven?
 
You say the answer is in "the hands of God".   Does that mean you don't know?

Right, I specificially stated that Jesus while on the cross forgave the unrepentant sinners. That is what is written in the Bible. The words spoken by God.

I did not say these sinners were allowed to be in Heaven. God did say that to the good thief but He did not say that to the unrepentant sinners. He forgave them for sure. Hence it is clear that as to whether or not they were admitted in Heaven is in the hands of God.

They are very simple words to be understood. Nothing is to be assumed from that. Assumption of anything out of the meaning of what God did can bring your soul to hell. That makes assumption a dangerous act.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 18, 2023, 09:04:42 AMJudge not, lest ye be judged ...

No, any claim that Jesus did not forgive the unrepentant sinners contrary to the words spoken by Him is blasphemous.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 18, 2023, 10:30:49 AMI made a mistake earlier about this quote.
   

Quote1200. Whether an offender asks pardon or not, one is obliged to forgive the offense—that is, to put aside all aversion, indignation and hatred:

It isn't from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.  It's from 'Moral Theology', by McHugh and Callan.

See Post 171.

Now, this is the truth, and I remain on whatever I stated previously against that wrongful statement. Consistency is what I do.

double post. sorry

Quote from: Baylee on March 18, 2023, 12:53:49 PMJulio, why do you continue to double down on your criticisms, accusations and judgments when both awkward customer and I have agreed that Church teaching teaches us to forgive others even if they do not ask for forgiveness?  We find it a very hard teaching, but we accept it.  After I posted Chruch teaching in detail, you would think you would give me some credit for admitting I was wrong. 

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt in that you're just not really understanding our posts, but I'm leaning more towards....how about you lay off? 

Of course, I forgive you,  ;)  but I sense that I will be putting you on ignore fairly soon.....and Church teaching allows me to do that.

To give anyone a credit is not my intention. I am for the truth.

Whatever is in your will is for God to know not mine. But, I must speak for the truth and if I see a position that endagers the soul because it is blasphemous then I will say that. Those previous positions that the two of you had were blasphemous and so be that. Having changed your position is great. It is for sure an act of correcting an error. The error was blasphemous. It is what it is.

Quote from: TradGranny on March 18, 2023, 11:02:27 AMDear Akward,
I was listening to this short Father Ripperger video and I thought of the struggle you're experiencing. He explains the role of repentence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acuLjX2bNiE

All the videos of Fr. Ripperger are helpful for the soul. I listen to them, and God bless you.

Quote from: Julio on March 18, 2023, 02:12:48 PM

Quote from: awkward customer on March 18, 2023, 09:19:10 AMIn Post 151 of this thread, you cited Christ's words on the Cross as evidence that God forgives unrepentant sinners.

Why, then, is it dangerous to assume that the unrepentant sinners responsible for the Crucifixion are in Heaven? 

Is it your opinion that there are unrepentant sinners in Heaven?
 
You say the answer is in "the hands of God".  Does that mean you don't know?

Right, I specificially stated that Jesus while on the cross forgave the unrepentant sinners. That is what is written in the Bible. The words spoken by God.

I did not say these sinners were allowed to be in Heaven. God did say that to the good thief but He did not say that to the unrepentant sinners. He forgave them for sure. Hence it is clear that as to whether or not they were admitted in Heaven is in the hands of God.

They are very simple words to be understood. Nothing is to be assumed from that. Assumption of anything out of the meaning of what God did can bring your soul to hell. That makes assumption a dangerous act.

Clearly you don't have an answer. 

You are refusing to consider the implications of what you are saying.  You then resort to table thumping and issuing threats of hellfire and damnation.

I find your behaviour offensive in the extreme.

You're on ignore.  But remember - I forgive you.

Quote from: TradGranny on March 18, 2023, 11:02:27 AMDear Akward,
I was listening to this short Father Ripperger video and I thought of the struggle you're experiencing. He explains the role of repentence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acuLjX2bNiE

This is very kind of you, TradGranny. 

But are you sure this is the video you meant to post?

Quote from: awkward customer on March 18, 2023, 02:27:23 PMClearly you don't have an answer. 

You are refusing to consider the implications of what you are saying.  You then resort to table thumping and issuing threats of hellfire and damnation.

I find your behaviour offensive in the extreme.

You're on ignore.  But remember - I forgive you.

I just made a clear answer to you. Nothing was added by God that He shall bring them to paradise after they were forgiven. Hence, that matter is in the hands of God. If your are offended by the truth, so be that. I am not here to make you feel better. I am here to state the truth.

Assumption or claims against that are blasphemous that can bring ones soul to hell. I remain. Whatever is in your mind is for your to will that. God knows my intention and God bless.

Quote from: Baylee on March 18, 2023, 01:00:19 PM

Quote from: awkward customer on March 18, 2023, 10:50:57 AMFrom the Catechism of Trent.

QuoteNecessity Of Forgiveness

...... Those, therefore, on whom injuries have been inflicted, should be ready and willing to pardon, urged to it as they are by this form of prayer[The Our Father], and by the command of God in St. Luke: If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him; and if he repent, forgive him; and if he sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, "I repent," forgive him.

So that's two Theology Manuals, the other being Heribert Jone, which mandate forgiveness of the unrepentant, albeit with certain disclaimers.

But the Catechism of Trent doesn't?  I have a copy and will go on looking looking.   

The end of that same paragraph in the Catechism of Trent also says:

and finally we read in the Gospel of St. Mark: When you shall stand to pray, forgive if you have anything against any man; that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your sins.

Yes, but which kind of forgiveness?  I found this quote on a random Catholic website.

' ..... we should forgive even those who don't ask forgiveness..... It's good to remember that our "forgiveness" is not the same as God's forgiveness. We aren't absolving someone of sin when we "forgive" them. We are simply letting go of any ill will we might have toward them, and in effect we are hoping that they reconcile with God.'
https://rcspirituality.org/ask_a_priest/ask-a-priest-should-i-forgive-when-someone-isnt-repentant/

The author of the article even puts our "forgiveness" in quotes to emphasize the difference.  When we forgive someone who doesn't ask to be forgiven, all we have to do is "let go of any ill will we might have towards them" and pray for them to be reconciled with God.  That's all.  We don't even have to resume the friendship.

The fact that there are two types of forgiveness with the same name causes a lot of confusion.  From now on I shall take care to remember that 'our forgiveness is not God's forgiveness'.  In effect - I forgive you in that I hold no ill will against you, but you're out of my life.   

Quote from: awkward customer on March 18, 2023, 02:29:55 PM

Quote from: TradGranny on March 18, 2023, 11:02:27 AMDear Akward,
I was listening to this short Father Ripperger video and I thought of the struggle you're experiencing. He explains the role of repentence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acuLjX2bNiE

This is very kind of you, TradGranny. 

But are you sure this is the video you meant to post?

YOu are right! Let me try to find the right one.

Quote from: TradGranny on March 18, 2023, 04:31:37 PM

Quote from: awkward customer on March 18, 2023, 02:29:55 PM

Quote from: TradGranny on March 18, 2023, 11:02:27 AMDear Akward,
I was listening to this short Father Ripperger video and I thought of the struggle you're experiencing. He explains the role of repentence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acuLjX2bNiE

This is very kind of you, TradGranny. 

But are you sure this is the video you meant to post?

YOu are right! Let me try to find the right one.

here it is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL91Ok7InL8
 It's all good, but 4:38 is on people who are difficult to forive because they think they're getting away with offending God.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 18, 2023, 02:27:23 PM

Quote from: Julio on March 18, 2023, 02:12:48 PM

Quote from: awkward customer on March 18, 2023, 09:19:10 AMIn Post 151 of this thread, you cited Christ's words on the Cross as evidence that God forgives unrepentant sinners.

Why, then, is it dangerous to assume that the unrepentant sinners responsible for the Crucifixion are in Heaven? 

Is it your opinion that there are unrepentant sinners in Heaven?
 
You say the answer is in "the hands of God".  Does that mean you don't know?

Right, I specificially stated that Jesus while on the cross forgave the unrepentant sinners. That is what is written in the Bible. The words spoken by God.

I did not say these sinners were allowed to be in Heaven. God did say that to the good thief but He did not say that to the unrepentant sinners. He forgave them for sure. Hence it is clear that as to whether or not they were admitted in Heaven is in the hands of God.

They are very simple words to be understood. Nothing is to be assumed from that. Assumption of anything out of the meaning of what God did can bring your soul to hell. That makes assumption a dangerous act.

Clearly you don't have an answer. 

You are refusing to consider the implications of what you are saying.  You then resort to table thumping and issuing threats of hellfire and damnation.

I find your behaviour offensive in the extreme.

You're on ignore.  But remember - I forgive you.

Hmm.  Sounds like the narcissists in my life.  I'm seeing a pattern. I refuse to do narcissists.

I will be putting him on ignore as well.

Quote from: Baylee on March 18, 2023, 09:17:20 PMHmm.  Sounds like the narcissists in my life.  I'm seeing a pattern. I refuse to do narcissists.

I also refuse to do narcissists.  My mother was one and her side of the family is full of them.

Having a narcissistic mother is a foretaste of hell.

I made a mistake, again.  I think there are three types of forgiveness, not two as I said before.

The theology manuals tell us that God's forgiveness is not the same as our forgiveness.  God has the authority to absolve.  We don't.  This suggests two types of forgiveness - God's and ours.  But there are actually two types of forgiveness that the laity should practice, which makes three.

The three types of forgiveness are -

- God's forgiveness,

- forgiveness from the laity when the offender is repentant.  This type is referred to in the Catechism of Trent and in Scripture, for example by St Luke - "If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him; and if he repent, forgive him;"

- forgiveness from the laity when the offender is unrepentant.  This type is referred to in the theology manuals and is explained as "simply letting go of any ill will we might have toward them", as referenced above and certain reservations are attached to it.

In day to day life, the implications of the two types of forgiveness the laity are obliged to practice seem to centre around the question of how to behave towards the person we are obliged to forgive.  If the offender is repentant, we forgive them without reservation. If they aren't repentant we can distance ourselves from them and not resume any friendship.

Three types of forgiveness makes sense to me. So when someone starts talking about forgiveness, I think it's is important to ask what kind of forgiveness they mean, given that there are three types and they all have the same name.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 19, 2023, 02:25:29 AMI made a mistake, again.  I think there are three types of forgiveness, not two as I said before.

The theology manuals tell us that God's forgiveness is not the same as our forgiveness.  God has the authority to absolve.  We don't.  This suggests two types of forgiveness - God's and ours.  But there are actually two types of forgiveness that the laity should practice, which makes three.

The three types of forgiveness are -

- God's forgiveness,

- forgiveness from the laity when the offender is repentant.  This type is referred to in the Catechism of Trent and in Scripture, for example by St Luke - "If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him; and if he repent, forgive him;"

- forgiveness from the laity when the offender is unrepentant.  This type is referred to in the theology manuals and is explained as "simply letting go of any ill will we might have toward them", as referenced above and certain reservations are attached to it.

In day to day life, the implications of the two types of forgiveness the laity are obliged to practice seem to centre around the question of how to behave towards the person we are obliged to forgive.  If the offender is repentant, we forgive them without reservation. If they aren't repentant we can distance ourselves from them and not resume any friendship.

Three types of forgiveness makes sense to me. So when someone starts talking about forgiveness, I think it's important to ask what kind of forgiveness they mean, given that there are three types and they all have the same name.

I think this is a good explanation AC regarding laity and forgiveness.

However, I do think that the question you had of God's forgiveness of those who were not repentant while He was on the Cross is a valid one:  Does that mean they went to Heaven?

I'm sure some might judge it blasphemous to even consider this theological question, but I'm guessing that this might have been a question that the Church entertained Herself. Before delving further into it myself, I think it shows that there could be two types of God's forgiveness.

If Christ forgave those that crucified Him/helped to crucify Him (those Jews and Romans alike) in the same way that He forgives us in the confessional/when we get baptized, then He forgave them before they accepted Him as their Lord and Savior. Of course, based on Catholic teaching that we must accept the Catholic Faith in order to get to Heaven, this doesn't make sense. In addition, He explicitly tells the good thief that he will be in Paradise with Him where He does not do that when He says, "Father forgive them...."

So, that leads me to believe that His forgiveness in that moment was some other kind of forgiveness.

Hopefully some others who are willing to actually have a theological conversation without judgment and accusations will chime in...of course, I know some of our best posters stopped posting for Lent.

Quote from: Baylee on March 19, 2023, 04:37:52 AMHowever, I do think that the question you had of God's forgiveness of those who were not repentant while He was on the Cross is a valid one:  Does that mean they went to Heaven?

I'm sure some might judge it blasphemous to even consider this theological question, but I'm guessing that this might have been a question that the Church entertained Herself. Before delving further into it myself, I think it shows that there could be two types of God's forgiveness.

If Christ forgave those that crucified Him/helped to crucify Him (those Jews and Romans alike) in the same way that He forgives us in the confessional/when we get baptized, then He forgave them before they accepted Him as their Lord and Savior. Of course, based on Catholic teaching that we must accept the Catholic Faith in order to get to Heaven, this doesn't make sense. In addition, He explicitly tells the good thief that he will be in Paradise with Him where He does not do that when He says, "Father forgive them...."

So, that leads me to believe that His forgiveness in that moment was some other kind of forgiveness.

Please delve into this question.  I haven't found anything that addresses it, so I really don't know.

Before I realised that there are three types of forgiveness and that we need to be clear which kind we are talking about, I argued on this thread that Christ showed us how to respond to the unrepentant by praying for them to the Father.  But He didn't actually forgive them Himself - because they were unrepentant.   

But if Christ did forgive them when they were unrepentant, and the Father too, then they were forgiven before they repented as you say.  If they didn't get to Heaven unrepentant, then they must have repented after God forgave them, and this  would be the only occasion that has ever happened?  If this was an example of some other kind of God's forgiveness that doesn't require repentance and conversion first, it would a one-off and never to be repeated?

Where's Michael Wilson when you need him?

Quote from: awkward customer on March 19, 2023, 10:29:21 AMWhere's Michael Wilson when you need him?

off for Lent.

Quote from: TradGranny on March 18, 2023, 04:39:07 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL91Ok7InL8
 It's all good, but 4:38 is on people who are difficult to forive because they think they're getting away with offending God.

This was very good, thank you.  No one gets away with anything because although anyone can refuse God's Mercy, they can't escape His Justice.  It might seem as if they do, here on Earth, but God's timing is not our timing.  Let them plot their ultimately futile intrigues.  Stay focused on God.   

Jesus told the good thief that he shall be in paradise with Him. This man died on the cross. We do not know as to what happened to these people who were forgiven by God while He was crucified. Did they continue to act in keeping with the will of God thereafter until they died? Or,  did they waste the grace of God? So to assume that all of them  went to heaven must be an error.  Their salvation is in the hands of God.

I am sure on what happened to St. Longinos who abandoned his being a member of Roman centurion after receiving God's miracle and grace. He for sure went to heaven.

I tend to think of it as levels of forgiveness.  In addition to the person I referred to up top, there is a situation much worse that gnaws at me because I allow it to keep hurting.  (Fr. Ripperger talks about wounds and healing in the video I will post at the bottom of this, explaining how the refusal of suffering is the actual wound.)

I am speaking here of being the object of hatred.  Yes, I said hatred, and I do not use the word lightly or in exaggeration. It is nearly impossible for an unaided human being to regard hatred toward himself as light matter and easily forgiven, or forgiven gradually over time and distance. I have only been able to feel charitable (in the theological sense of the word) toward this person when aided by grace.  Only actual and sanctifying graces can overcome our natural shock and resentment when it is obvious that another wants to destroy us, and I think we lose credibility when we pretend otherwise.

The command is, IOW, to seek the grace to forgive.  That we are required to do, i.m.o., in an absolute sense.

Here's the video. I post it because I believe it pertains to the thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqKV28eSaWo

Quote from: Miriam_M on March 19, 2023, 11:42:01 PMI tend to think of it as levels of forgiveness.  In addition to the person I referred to up top, there is a situation much worse that gnaws at me because I allow it to keep hurting.  (Fr. Ripperger talks about wounds and healing in the video I will post at the bottom of this, explaining how the refusal of suffering is the actual wound.)

I am speaking here of being the object of hatred.  Yes, I said hatred, and I do not use the word lightly or in exaggeration. It is nearly impossible for an unaided human being to regard hatred toward himself as light matter and easily forgiven, or forgiven gradually over time and distance. I have only been able to feel charitable (in the theological sense of the word) toward this person when aided by grace.  Only actual and sanctifying graces can overcome our natural shock and resentment when it is obvious that another wants to destroy us, and I think we lose credibility when we pretend otherwise.

The command is, IOW, to seek the grace to forgive.  That we are required to do, i.m.o., in an absolute sense.

Here's the video. I post it because I believe it pertains to the thread.

Help, the video is over 2 hours long.

Levels of forgiveness or types of forgiveness, I think it's important to differentiate between the two types, or levels, of forgiveness required of the laity, especially in the kind of situation you describe, which I am familiar with.

Does Fr Ripperger make the distinction?

 

Yes.  I'm sorry about the length of the video.  I agree that I hate to watch long ones myself, especially not knowing the scope.  He begins to get into the problems with "hanging on to wounds" at 22:00.

My own distinction was not at all on "types of forgiveness," although I do agree that forgiving a visibly contrite offender vs. a barely contrite one vs. one who shows no remorse could be viewed by the potential forgiver as different "types."

I do mean levels as it pertains to the command by our Master because I think it is not realistic (and an impossible burden) to generate interior or exterior forgiveness on a strictly human level, if the offense is anything significant or --worse-- continual. 

Some people hold grudges and exact apologizes over everything, including a minor slight or careless reply by another.  Hopefully, a practicing Catholic, especially during Lent, is virtuous enough to overlook the offenses of someone who otherwise is  a decent person.  I don't think any of us are speaking of that but rather of a significant injury by someone else that rises to an injustice difficult to forget -- something we would consider a mortal sin if we were the offender.

So I'll limit it to that: a serious offense for which there is no evident sorrow by the offender.

So, question of thread: "Accepting an Apology" is, I realize, slightly different because if the offender has even mouthed the words, "I'm sorry," then even "unaided" human courtesy dictates accepting that apology orally, it seems to me. But there are all kinds of ways to accept an apology, just as there are many ways to deliver it. For example, "Thank you for understanding how deep my hurt was (or how shocked, surprised I was), given how closely I have known you." That will give the offender pause to consider then or later the minimalist quality of his apology.

Second, clearly, we can pray that God will enlighten the person over time to re-examine the degree of injustice and how unmatched his apology was. But keep in mind that the offender may never show us the development of that sorrow, out of shame, and his dealings with us directly may show defensiveness because his pride is covering his shame, which is the fruit of remorse.

All I'm saying is that a continual or a significant single injury, especially one not accompanied by any apology in word or behavior -- is difficult to achieve unaided by grace.  Most people, including believers, including Catholics, are not naturally virtuous enough to forgive.  That's just my experience and observation.

I interpret the command of Scripture -- in the light of Catholic teaching -- as a command to seek God's grace to forgive those offenses difficult to forgive, including when an apology has been delivered.

Quote from: Miriam_M on March 20, 2023, 07:56:25 AMYes.  I'm sorry about the length of the video.  I agree that I hate to watch long ones myself, especially not knowing the scope.  He begins to get into the problems with "hanging on to wounds" at 22:00.

My own distinction was not at all on "types of forgiveness," although I do agree that forgiving a visibly contrite offender vs. a barely contrite one vs. one who shows no remorse could be viewed by the potential forgiver as different "types."

I do mean levels as it pertains to the command by our Master because I think it is not realistic (and an impossible burden) to generate interior or exterior forgiveness on a strictly human level, if the offense is anything significant or --worse-- continual. 

Some people hold grudges and exact apologizes over everything, including a minor slight or careless reply by another.  Hopefully, a practicing Catholic, especially during Lent, is virtuous enough to overlook the offenses of someone who otherwise is  a decent person.  I don't think any of us are speaking of that but rather of a significant injury by someone else that rises to an injustice difficult to forget -- something we would consider a mortal sin if we were the offender.

So I'll limit it to that: a serious offense for which there is no evident sorrow by the offender.

So, question of thread: "Accepting an Apology" is, I realize, slightly different because if the offender has even mouthed the words, "I'm sorry," then even "unaided" human courtesy dictates accepting that apology orally, it seems to me. But there are all kinds of ways to accept an apology, just as there are many ways to deliver it. For example, "Thank you for understanding how deep my hurt was (or how shocked, surprised I was), given how closely I have known you." That will give the offender pause to consider then or later the minimalist quality of his apology.

Second, clearly, we can pray that God will enlighten the person over time to re-examine the degree of injustice and how unmatched his apology was. But keep in mind that the offender may never show us the development of that sorrow, out of shame, and his dealings with us directly may show defensiveness because his pride is covering his shame, which is the fruit of remorse.

All I'm saying is that a continual or a significant single injury, especially one not accompanied by any apology in word or behavior -- is difficult to achieve unaided by grace.  Most people, including believers, including Catholics, are not naturally virtuous enough to forgive.  That's just my experience and observation.

I interpret the command of Scripture -- in the light of Catholic teaching -- as a command to seek God's grace to forgive those offenses difficult to forgive, including when an apology has been delivered.

Yes, Miriam.  This reminds me of this section of the Catechism of Trent that I quoted earlier in the thread:

Those Who Do Not Love Their Enemies

There may be some who, because they have not yet been able to bring themselves to forget injuries and to love their enemies, are consequently deterred by the condition contained in this Petition from making use of the Lord's Prayer. To remove from their minds this pernicious error, the pastor should adduce the two following considerations.

(In the first place), whoever belongs to the number of the faithful, offers this prayer in the name of the entire Church, in which there must necessarily be some pious persons who have forgiven their debtors the debts here mentioned.

Secondly, when we ask this favour from God, we also ask for whatever cooperation with the Petition is necessary on our part in order to obtain the object of our prayer. Thus we ask the pardon of our sins and the gift of true repentance; we pray for the grace of inward sorrow; we beg that we may be able to abhor our sins, and confess them truly and piously to the priest. Since, then, it is necessary for us to forgive those who have inflicted on us any loss or injury, when we ask pardon of God we beg of Him at the same time to grant us grace to be reconciled to those against whom we harbour hatred.

Those, therefore, who are troubled by that groundless and perverse fear, that by this prayer they provoke still more the wrath of God, should be undeceived and should be exhorted to make frequent use of a prayer in which they beseech God our Father to grant them the disposition to forgive those who have injured them and to love their enemies.

Quote from: Miriam_M on March 20, 2023, 07:56:25 AMYes.  I'm sorry about the length of the video.  I agree that I hate to watch long ones myself, especially not knowing the scope.  He begins to get into the problems with "hanging on to wounds" at 22:00.

My own distinction was not at all on "types of forgiveness," although I do agree that forgiving a visibly contrite offender vs. a barely contrite one vs. one who shows no remorse could be viewed by the potential forgiver as different "types."

I do mean levels as it pertains to the command by our Master because I think it is not realistic (and an impossible burden) to generate interior or exterior forgiveness on a strictly human level, if the offense is anything significant or --worse-- continual. 

Some people hold grudges and exact apologizes over everything, including a minor slight or careless reply by another.  Hopefully, a practicing Catholic, especially during Lent, is virtuous enough to overlook the offenses of someone who otherwise is  a decent person.  I don't think any of us are speaking of that but rather of a significant injury by someone else that rises to an injustice difficult to forget -- something we would consider a mortal sin if we were the offender.

So I'll limit it to that: a serious offense for which there is no evident sorrow by the offender.

So, question of thread: "Accepting an Apology" is, I realize, slightly different because if the offender has even mouthed the words, "I'm sorry," then even "unaided" human courtesy dictates accepting that apology orally, it seems to me. But there are all kinds of ways to accept an apology, just as there are many ways to deliver it. For example, "Thank you for understanding how deep my hurt was (or how shocked, surprised I was), given how closely I have known you." That will give the offender pause to consider then or later the minimalist quality of his apology.

Second, clearly, we can pray that God will enlighten the person over time to re-examine the degree of injustice and how unmatched his apology was. But keep in mind that the offender may never show us the development of that sorrow, out of shame, and his dealings with us directly may show defensiveness because his pride is covering his shame, which is the fruit of remorse.

All I'm saying is that a continual or a significant single injury, especially one not accompanied by any apology in word or behavior -- is difficult to achieve unaided by grace.  Most people, including believers, including Catholics, are not naturally virtuous enough to forgive.  That's just my experience and observation.

I interpret the command of Scripture -- in the light of Catholic teaching -- as a command to seek God's grace to forgive those offenses difficult to forgive, including when an apology has been delivered.

I agree with most of what you are saying here.  Forgiveness isn't a checklist affair and we don't demand every last drop of restitution from anyone.  And in most everyday situations we simply overlook offenses and don't demand anything.

But in the case of a "continual or a significant single injury, especially one not accompanied by any apology" that you refer to, I think it is important to make the distinction between what seem to me to be significantly different 'types' of forgiveness.   Because there is no command in Scripture to forgive the unrepentant that I can find.  The command is clearly to forgive those who do repent, as in Luke 17 and Matthew 18.

The obligation to forgive those who do not repent is to be found in "the command of Scripture - in the light of Catholic teaching", and the obligation comes with certain provisos.  According to the Moral Theology manual quoted earlier in this thread (McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology), the forgiveness that we are to show to the unrepentant only consists of 'not wishing the person ill-will', and also praying for them.  We aren't obliged to continue any friendship with them and we can even sue them in court.

This type of forgiveness is substantially different from the forgiveness commanded by Christ.  Christ commands that we forgive those who do penance, according to St Luke.  Christ tells us that we shall 'gain our brother' if he 'hears us' after being rebuked for an offence, according to St Matthew.

Given that the outcome of forgiveness commanded by Scripture and the forgiveness commanded by "Catholic teaching" are quite different, I think that a lot of confusion and anguish could be avoided if the distinction was explained more clearly.

Which is why I refer to the two types as Type I forgiveness and Type II forgiveness. They're not the same.

Quote from: Miriam_M on March 19, 2023, 11:42:01 PMI tend to think of it as levels of forgiveness.  In addition to the person I referred to up top, there is a situation much worse that gnaws at me because I allow it to keep hurting.  (Fr. Ripperger talks about wounds and healing in the video I will post at the bottom of this, explaining how the refusal of suffering is the actual wound.)

I am speaking here of being the object of hatred.  Yes, I said hatred, and I do not use the word lightly or in exaggeration. It is nearly impossible for an unaided human being to regard hatred toward himself as light matter and easily forgiven, or forgiven gradually over time and distance. I have only been able to feel charitable (in the theological sense of the word) toward this person when aided by grace.  Only actual and sanctifying graces can overcome our natural shock and resentment when it is obvious that another wants to destroy us, and I think we lose credibility when we pretend otherwise.

The command is, IOW, to seek the grace to forgive.  That we are required to do, i.m.o., in an absolute sense.

Here's the video. I post it because I believe it pertains to the thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqKV28eSaWo

Amen, and God bless you sister.

I respectfully disagree with your assertions in Reply 228, Awkward.  Just because there is not the explicit scriptural distinction you make between repentant and unrepentant does not mean that it is the province of human beings to make that judgment and forgive, or not, accordingly.  What you are understandably speaking about is justice, and justice does not belong to us, but to God.  Scripture is very clear about that, as are the Saints.  Our forgiveness is not contingent upon or even related to God's justice. However, God takes into account positive gestures on the part of the offender to reconcile with the person he has injured, which is why, if such gestures are made, we would be judged unfavorably if we refuse an apology.  And the more that apology is accompanied by a conversion in behavior, and/or restitution toward us in particular, the fewer excuses we would have not to forgive.

There are separate topics here, but that doesn't reduce our explicit obligation to forgive.

Topic 1: How we externally handle an offered apology for an objective offense. (Are we required, out of charity, to accept that apology as a formal response to it, alone? In my opinion, yes.)
Topic 2: How we internally, spiritually, process that apology.
Topic 3: Whether we faithfully seek, through prayer and perhaps in the confessional, the graces to forgive an offender whether or not an apology has been extended.

A fourth topic would be how we process the offense and/or the apology psychologically.  But our feelings are not the basis for Christ's words, nor does He incorporate in that directive the reality of our feelings.  I mean, some people have so little control over their emotions and passions that they forgive no one.  All we have to do is look at the murders that accompany some "road rage" incidents.

A few years ago, I had several talks with my spiritual director about the topic of justice.  I was referring to the parish setting, actually, and the reality that some members of the parish (adults!) seem to have not much more control over their emotions and behavior than a child of six, and that such behavior -- despite its highly negative influence on others in the parish -- seems to suffer no consequences.  No priest reprimands the parishioner; no other parishioner confronts the toxic behavior, out of [sometimes false] "charity."  He replied that for each of us, our standard of justice is highly subjective.  That is, even if our standard of justice appears to align with Catholic morality in terms of error, reparation, etc., God's justice takes into account many things:  it is more "global" than our perspective is, because the person in question may be very, very limited in his or her ability to cope with frustrations and setbacks in life.  It's not that his behavior gets a pass; it's that the justice may eventually be applied to the failure of that individual to take control of his emotions in gene4arl -- that the giant sin of omission may be something God deals with in His own perfect timing.

Perhaps more importantly, as Fr. Ripperger makes explicit in that video, the Divine plan is outside of our view.  That Divine plan may very well include our sanctification.  I know that I myself have trouble with a fixation on justice because I have somewhat of a legal mind, due to my upbringing.  So maybe this longstanding, visceral hatred that this person has shown toward me, for 8 years plus now, God wills to allow so that I will become sanctified (in that area), or at least more detached from my "principles," through this experience. 

Quote from: awkward customer on March 20, 2023, 01:05:53 PM

Quote from: Miriam_M on March 20, 2023, 07:56:25 AMYes.  I'm sorry about the length of the video.  I agree that I hate to watch long ones myself, especially not knowing the scope.  He begins to get into the problems with "hanging on to wounds" at 22:00.

My own distinction was not at all on "types of forgiveness," although I do agree that forgiving a visibly contrite offender vs. a barely contrite one vs. one who shows no remorse could be viewed by the potential forgiver as different "types."

I do mean levels as it pertains to the command by our Master because I think it is not realistic (and an impossible burden) to generate interior or exterior forgiveness on a strictly human level, if the offense is anything significant or --worse-- continual. 

Some people hold grudges and exact apologizes over everything, including a minor slight or careless reply by another.  Hopefully, a practicing Catholic, especially during Lent, is virtuous enough to overlook the offenses of someone who otherwise is  a decent person.  I don't think any of us are speaking of that but rather of a significant injury by someone else that rises to an injustice difficult to forget -- something we would consider a mortal sin if we were the offender.

So I'll limit it to that: a serious offense for which there is no evident sorrow by the offender.

So, question of thread: "Accepting an Apology" is, I realize, slightly different because if the offender has even mouthed the words, "I'm sorry," then even "unaided" human courtesy dictates accepting that apology orally, it seems to me. But there are all kinds of ways to accept an apology, just as there are many ways to deliver it. For example, "Thank you for understanding how deep my hurt was (or how shocked, surprised I was), given how closely I have known you." That will give the offender pause to consider then or later the minimalist quality of his apology.

Second, clearly, we can pray that God will enlighten the person over time to re-examine the degree of injustice and how unmatched his apology was. But keep in mind that the offender may never show us the development of that sorrow, out of shame, and his dealings with us directly may show defensiveness because his pride is covering his shame, which is the fruit of remorse.

All I'm saying is that a continual or a significant single injury, especially one not accompanied by any apology in word or behavior -- is difficult to achieve unaided by grace.  Most people, including believers, including Catholics, are not naturally virtuous enough to forgive.  That's just my experience and observation.

I interpret the command of Scripture -- in the light of Catholic teaching -- as a command to seek God's grace to forgive those offenses difficult to forgive, including when an apology has been delivered.

I agree with most of what you are saying here.  Forgiveness isn't a checklist affair and we don't demand every last drop of restitution from anyone.  And in most everyday situations we simply overlook offenses and don't demand anything.

But in the case of a "continual or a significant single injury, especially one not accompanied by any apology" that you refer to, I think it is important to make the distinction between what seem to me to be significantly different 'types' of forgiveness.   Because there is no command in Scripture to forgive the unrepentant that I can find.  The command is clearly to forgive those who do repent, as in Luke 17 and Matthew 18.

The obligation to forgive those who do not repent is to be found in "the command of Scripture - in the light of Catholic teaching", and the obligation comes with certain provisos.  According to the Moral Theology manual quoted earlier in this thread (McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology), the forgiveness that we are to show to the unrepentant only consists of 'not wishing the person ill-will', and also praying for them.  We aren't obliged to continue any friendship with them and we can even sue them in court.

This type of forgiveness is substantially different from the forgiveness commanded by Christ.  Christ commands that we forgive those who do penance, according to St Luke.  Christ tells us that we shall 'gain our brother' if he 'hears us' after being rebuked for an offence, according to St Matthew.

Given that the outcome of forgiveness commanded by Scripture and the forgiveness commanded by "Catholic teaching" are quite different, I think that a lot of confusion and anguish could be avoided if the distinction was explained more clearly.

Which is why I refer to the two types as Type I forgiveness and Type II forgiveness. They're not the same.

Catholic teaching and Scripture cannot be at odds. I think Moral Theology manuals are meant to better understand Scripture and Catholic teaching and to make proper distinctions.
 

Quote from: Miriam_M on March 20, 2023, 03:09:35 PMI respectfully disagree with your assertions in Reply 228, Awkward.  Just because there is not the explicit scriptural distinction you make between repentant and unrepentant does not mean that it is the province of human beings to make that judgment and forgive, or not, accordingly. 

There is no command in Scripture to forgive the unrepentant.  The Scriptural command to forgive refers only to those who "do penance" and to those "who hear you".

The distinction between the types of forgiveness doesn't exist in Scripture because nowhere does Scripture command us to forgive those who don't want to be forgiven.  I realise that there is more than one way of apologising.  It doesn't have to be verbal, it could be behavioural.  But the desire has to be there.

QuoteA few years ago, I had several talks with my spiritual director about the topic of justice.  I was referring to the parish setting, actually, and the reality that some members of the parish (adults!) seem to have not much more control over their emotions and behavior than a child of six, and that such behavior -- despite its highly negative influence on others in the parish -- seems to suffer no consequences.  No priest reprimands the parishioner; no other parishioner confronts the toxic behavior, out of [sometimes false] "charity."  He replied that for each of us, our standard of justice is highly subjective.  That is, even if our standard of justice appears to align with Catholic morality in terms of error, reparation, etc., God's justice takes into account many things:  it is more "global" than our perspective is, because the person in question may be very, very limited in his or her ability to cope with frustrations and setbacks in life.  It's not that his behavior gets a pass; it's that the justice may eventually be applied to the failure of that individual to take control of his emotions in gene4arl -- that the giant sin of omission may be something God deals with in His own perfect timing.

My experience is that priests have little or no concern for peace in the pews. 

Is letting a troublemaker repeatedly disturb the peace of the majority an example of God's Justice? 

QuotePerhaps more importantly, as Fr. Ripperger makes explicit in that video, the Divine plan is outside of our view.  That Divine plan may very well include our sanctification.  I know that I myself have trouble with a fixation on justice because I have somewhat of a legal mind, due to my upbringing.  So maybe this longstanding, visceral hatred that this person has shown toward me, for 8 years plus now, God wills to allow so that I will become sanctified (in that area), or at least more detached from my "principles," through this experience.

Have you no choice but to put up with this behaviour?  Can't you ghost the person, avoid them, confront them?

Someone has shown you "longstanding, visceral hatred for over 8 years".  Is this person a bully?  Bullies love it when people accept their bullying behaviour.  It gives them a free pass to continue the behaviour.

I wish more people were fixated on justice.  If they were, the troublemaker in your chapel would have been confronted long ago.

Quote from: Baylee on March 20, 2023, 03:59:19 PMCatholic teaching and Scripture cannot be at odds. I think Moral Theology manuals are meant to better understand Scripture and Catholic teaching and to make proper distinctions.
 

I don't think they're at odds.  The forgiveness mandated by Christ is defined in a certain way in Scripture.  Catholic teaching expands this definition by extending forgiveness to the unrepentant and reducing the response that the one required to forgive is obliged to make to the offender. 

Don't you think there's a distinction between the two, given that the behaviour expected of us towards the person in each case is different? 

Or, why are they the same?

Quote from: awkward customer on March 20, 2023, 04:12:21 PM

Quote from: Miriam_M on March 20, 2023, 03:09:35 PMI respectfully disagree with your assertions in Reply 228, Awkward.  Just because there is not the explicit scriptural distinction you make between repentant and unrepentant does not mean that it is the province of human beings to make that judgment and forgive, or not, accordingly. 

There is no command in Scripture to forgive the unrepentant.  The Scriptural command to forgive refers only to those who "do penance" and to those "who hear you".

The distinction between the types of forgiveness doesn't exist in Scripture because nowhere does Scripture command us to forgive those who don't want to be forgiven.  I realise that there is more than one way of apologising.  It doesn't have to be verbal, it could be behavioural.  But the desire has to be there.

There is no distinction in Scripture because there is no distinction in Jesus Christ.  His command is universal, even though He does not [unrealistically] demand that we deny our feelings.  We don't have to feel wonderful about someone in order to forgive them. He would never ask that of us because He took on our human nature and would have understood that even before taking it on.

Further, there is also neither permission to weigh the matter of justice nor the command to weigh it.  Clearly, a permanent offense of a very grievous nature is of a different category of emotional impact that a one-time insult to our face.  We might never be expected to fully heal, in this life, of the first category, while we would be expected to let go of the one-time incident, and heal from that emotionally (but not from the former category emotionally).  But forgiveness, again, does not necessarily eviscerate our emotional reality. What Jesus is referring to is a transcendent act, and very many of His words elsewhere in the Gospels acknowledge the need for divine intervention in any matter of great difficulty. 

QuoteA few years ago, I had several talks with my spiritual director about the topic of justice.  I was referring to the parish setting, actually, and the reality that some members of the parish (adults!) seem to have not much more control over their emotions and behavior than a child of six, and that such behavior -- despite its highly negative influence on others in the parish -- seems to suffer no consequences.  No priest reprimands the parishioner; no other parishioner confronts the toxic behavior, out of [sometimes false] "charity."  He replied that for each of us, our standard of justice is highly subjective.  That is, even if our standard of justice appears to align with Catholic morality in terms of error, reparation, etc., God's justice takes into account many things:  it is more "global" than our perspective is, because the person in question may be very, very limited in his or her ability to cope with frustrations and setbacks in life.  It's not that his behavior gets a pass; it's that the justice may eventually be applied to the failure of that individual to take control of his emotions in gene4arl -- that the giant sin of omission may be something God deals with in His own perfect timing.

QuoteMy experience is that priests have little or no concern for peace in the pews. 

Is letting a troublemaker repeatedly disturb the peace of the majority an example of God's Justice?

It's an example of poor leadership and/or bad judgment, i.m.o.  However, again, the responsibilities of others, including of priests and offenders, are not our responsibilities.  IOW, the fact that other people are not living up to their responsibilities does not absolve us of fulfilling the Commandments, and not just The Ten, by the way, but include the many other directives by Our Saviour. Those people -- especially men in clerical positions -- will be judged by the Perfect Judge who does not need our advice.  ;)

QuotePerhaps more importantly, as Fr. Ripperger makes explicit in that video, the Divine plan is outside of our view.  That Divine plan may very well include our sanctification.  I know that I myself have trouble with a fixation on justice because I have somewhat of a legal mind, due to my upbringing.  So maybe this longstanding, visceral hatred that this person has shown toward me, for 8 years plus now, God wills to allow so that I will become sanctified (in that area), or at least more detached from my "principles," through this experience.

QuoteHave you no choice but to put up with this behaviour?  Can't you ghost the person, avoid them, confront them?

Someone has shown you "longstanding, visceral hatred for over 8 years".  Is this person a bully?  Bullies love it when people accept their bullying behaviour.  It gives them a free pass to continue the behaviour.

I wish more people were fixated on justice.  If they were, the troublemaker in your chapel would have been confronted long ago.

Yes, she is a bully, which is why I have left the parish.  I got tired of being her victim, and no one would confront her, although I approached the priest about her behavior.

I want to mention one more thing:  Fr. Ripperger -- I think in this same video -- discusses anger and envy within the context of hatred.  That proceeded from his narration of an exorcism and dialogue with Beelzebub, who revealed his jealousy about God's beauty/beauteous love, rather than envy of power, per se, which is how Catholics have often been taught to regard Satan's fall from grace -- the desire to rival God's power.  Instead, Fr. R explains that the conversation during the exorcism revealed that the subject of envy was Our Lady's spiritual beauty, which proceeds from God's beautiful love.  Fr. R went on to explain that people consumed by hatred of one person are often actually quite angry because they want to seize something the other person has, but they want for themselves, and they are very angry that they are unable to steal it.

The latter describes my situation in this group at the parish because she wanted something that had been assigned to me, so she made my life as miserable as possible.

Quote from: Miriam_M on March 20, 2023, 03:09:35 PMI respectfully disagree with your assertions in Reply 228, Awkward.  Just because there is not the explicit scriptural distinction you make between repentant and unrepentant does not mean that it is the province of human beings to make that judgment and forgive, or not, accordingly.  What you are understandably speaking about is justice, and justice does not belong to us, but to God.  Scripture is very clear about that, as are the Saints.  Our forgiveness is not contingent upon or even related to God's justice. However, God takes into account positive gestures on the part of the offender to reconcile with the person he has injured, which is why, if such gestures are made, we would be judged unfavorably if we refuse an apology.  And the more that apology is accompanied by a conversion in behavior, and/or restitution toward us in particular, the fewer excuses we would have not to forgive.

I fully agree with everything that you wrote.

Intellectual pride is really a problem according to Fr. Ripperger in his series of videos. He is right that such is true both to many people who call themselves traditionalists and the godless in general. The way to find the truth is blotted by pride as discussed by Fr. Chad. It is all about self and not the truth that matters for these kinds of people that he described.

Quote from: Miriam_M on March 20, 2023, 05:24:37 PMA few years ago, I had several talks with my spiritual director about the topic of justice.  I was referring to the parish setting, actually, and the reality that some members of the parish (adults!) seem to have not much more control over their emotions and behavior than a child of six, and that such behavior -- despite its highly negative influence on others in the parish -- seems to suffer no consequences.  No priest reprimands the parishioner; no other parishioner confronts the toxic behavior, out of [sometimes false] "charity."  He replied that for each of us, our standard of justice is highly subjective.  That is, even if our standard of justice appears to align with Catholic morality in terms of error, reparation, etc., God's justice takes into account many things:  it is more "global" than our perspective is, because the person in question may be very, very limited in his or her ability to cope with frustrations and setbacks in life.  It's not that his behavior gets a pass; it's that the justice may eventually be applied to the failure of that individual to take control of his emotions in gene4arl -- that the giant sin of omission may be something God deals with in His own perfect timing.

..... It's an example of poor leadership and/or bad judgment, i.m.o.  However, again, the responsibilities of others, including of priests and offenders, are not our responsibilities.  IOW, the fact that other people are not living up to their responsibilities does not absolve us of fulfilling the Commandments, and not just The Ten, by the way, but include the many other directives by Our Saviour. Those people -- especially men in clerical positions -- will be judged by the Perfect Judge who does not need our advice.  ;)

.... Perhaps more importantly, as Fr. Ripperger makes explicit in that video, the Divine plan is outside of our view.  That Divine plan may very well include our sanctification.  I know that I myself have trouble with a fixation on justice because I have somewhat of a legal mind, due to my upbringing.  So maybe this longstanding, visceral hatred that this person has shown toward me, for 8 years plus now, God wills to allow so that I will become sanctified (in that area), or at least more detached from my "principles," through this experience.

.... Yes, she is a bully, which is why I have left the parish.  I got tired of being her victim, and no one would confront her, although I approached the priest about her behavior.

The first part of your posts lists all the reasons why this troublemaker should not be confronted and that the path to sanctity lies in bearing with this person's behaviour without complaint.  And the result was that no-one would confront this person and you had to leave the parish. 

Your priest told you that "our standards of justice are highly subjective".   So who is going to stick their necks out and 'judge' this person?   You say that "the responsibilities of others, including of priests and offenders, are not our responsibilities".   So who is going to get involved if it's none of their business?  You also say you have a "fixation on justice", as if that's a problem, given that justice seems to have been lacking in a situation which allows  one persistent troublemaker to repeatedly disturb the peace of others.

Is it possible to become so hamstrung by the insistence that we 'judge not' that we are rendered unable to act against a persistent trouble maker?  I suspect that's what happened in your parish.

I doubt that God requires us to become passive victims of bullies in order to achieve sanctity.

Quote from: Miriam_M on March 20, 2023, 05:24:37 PMFurther, there is also neither permission to weigh the matter of justice nor the command to weigh it.  Clearly, a permanent offense of a very grievous nature is of a different category of emotional impact that a one-time insult to our face.  We might never be expected to fully heal, in this life, of the first category, while we would be expected to let go of the one-time incident, and heal from that emotionally (but not from the former category emotionally).  But forgiveness, again, does not necessarily eviscerate our emotional reality. What Jesus is referring to is a transcendent act, and very many of His words elsewhere in the Gospels acknowledge the need for divine intervention in any matter of great difficulty. 

I was thinking about what you said here and suddenly wondered if there is such a thing as 'spiritual trauma', as in the shock to the system experienced by realising that someone is truly malevolent and has nothing but evil intent despite the appearance of good will.  It's a huge shock to the system, as you are aware.

The Psalms are excellent at voicing this shock and at expressing the desire that God smite the enemy and rescue the sufferer from the persecutors. In this way the shock and anger experienced is allowed to be expressed while the recourse to justice is placed entirely in God's hands.

Whether there are types or levels of forgiveness doesn't really matter if the end result is the same, the end result being that we pray for those who persecute us, treat them with charity and leave the rest to God.

Quote from: awkward customer on March 20, 2023, 04:28:52 PM

Quote from: Baylee on March 20, 2023, 03:59:19 PMCatholic teaching and Scripture cannot be at odds. I think Moral Theology manuals are meant to better understand Scripture and Catholic teaching and to make proper distinctions.
 

I don't think they're at odds.  The forgiveness mandated by Christ is defined in a certain way in Scripture.  Catholic teaching expands this definition by extending forgiveness to the unrepentant and reducing the response that the one required to forgive is obliged to make to the offender. 

Don't you think there's a distinction between the two, given that the behaviour expected of us towards the person in each case is different? 

Or, why are they the same?

Although there may not be a specific command in Scripture to forgive those that are unrepentant, Christ does command us to "Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect".  That command alone covers everything, and I figure Catholic teaching uses that to expound on various areas of Moral theology.

We are to strive to be perfect...in everything. So, we are commanded to forgive....always.  Catholic teaching explains how to forgive...how to get there knowing our fallen natures and how to get there in the very difficult situations our fallen natures (oftentimes the other person's fallen nature) place us.

Quote from: Baylee on March 21, 2023, 06:38:15 AMAlthough there may not be a specific command in Scripture to forgive those that are unrepentant, Christ does command us to "Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect".  That command alone covers everything, and I figure Catholic teaching uses that to expound on various areas of Moral theology.

I can't resist making the obvious retort to your question - God doesn't forgive the unrepentant, so how can forgiving the unrepentant make us more like Him?  You see how this could go on and on.

But it doesn't need to.  Because whether or not we agree about there being different types of forgiveness, we are still called to bear no ill will towards the person, to pray for them and to treat them with charity.  It helps me to think of forgiveness as two types, but if this does not take away from how I behave towards someone who has caused me harm, how can it matter?

Now it's just a question of definitions, with the end result being the same whatever the definition. I think I should leave it at that.

Quote from: Baylee on March 21, 2023, 06:38:15 AMAlthough there may not be a specific command in Scripture to forgive those that are unrepentant, Christ does command us to "Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect".  That command alone covers everything, and I figure Catholic teaching uses that to expound on various areas of Moral theology.

We are to strive to be perfect...in everything. So, we are commanded to forgive....always.  Catholic teaching explains how to forgive...how to get there knowing our fallen natures and how to get there in the very difficult situations our fallen natures (oftentimes the other person's fallen nature) place us.

Amen. To forgive always. To be perfect.

Awkward, you bring up some good points which may be outside of the topic of this thread, and because I do not wish to derail it or make the topic about me, so I'll PM you about those particular comments when I get a chance.

Quote from: Julio on March 22, 2023, 07:02:13 PM

Quote from: Baylee on March 21, 2023, 06:38:15 AMAlthough there may not be a specific command in Scripture to forgive those that are unrepentant, Christ does command us to "Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect".  That command alone covers everything, and I figure Catholic teaching uses that to expound on various areas of Moral theology.

We are to strive to be perfect...in everything. So, we are commanded to forgive....always.  Catholic teaching explains how to forgive...how to get there knowing our fallen natures and how to get there in the very difficult situations our fallen natures (oftentimes the other person's fallen nature) place us.

Amen. To forgive always. To be perfect.

We are to be perfect by way of analogy (as mere man, with grace) not by nature (only God is Divine).

You know, actually Christ in the priest does not forgive mortal sin in the confessional without repentence (it is invalid if there is no kind of contrition); without perfect contrition it is presumptuous to think a man in mortal sin can be saved outside the Church.

Maybe this thread is mostly discussing forgiveness of men by men?

Forgiveness by God removes sin from the soul itself (from the offender). But I would think it does not force the will (i.e. in an evil adult) - repentence is voluntary

Forgiveness by (mere) man cannot remove sin. But in a good Christian, it can include prayer that the offender repents and that God forgives him. Who can say that someone will never
repent?

About Christ's forgiveness of his killers on the Cross. Maybe some miracle of enlightenment and grace occurred (even if not apparent in Scripture) so that his killers did repent after all.

^^Yes, I agree about the distinction between the obligation of every mortal to forgive ones fellow. On the other hand, God's mercy and forgiveness is in a different context.

On the forgiveness of God while He was on the cross, all that I know is that the Catholic Tradition and the Bible adds nothing to any of which that happened there. Like, St. Longinus pierced the body of Jesus and the blood of God fell upon his eyes and he was cured. Nothing was shown of contrition or repentance by this man who just stabbed God. The convertion and repentance of St. Longinus, happened thereafter. So, my take on that is it is what it was. There is none to be added out of the factual circumstances. "Maybe" is such a word that may lead to precarious situation.