Posted on 08/18/2011 7:18:16 AM PDT by marshmallow
So why is the seal of confession inviolable? Why does the seal bind under such a grave obligation that the Church excommunicates any confessor who directly violates it? (See: The seal of confession: some basics)
There are two principal reasons why the priest must preserve the seal: the virtue of justice and the virtue of religion. The motive of justice is evident because the penitent, by the very fact of entering the confessional, or asking the priest to hear his confession (we’ll deal with “reconciliation rooms” another day) rightly expects that the priest will observe the seal. This is a contract entered into by the fact of the priest agreeing to hear a person’s confession. To mandate the violation of the seal is in effect to prohibit the celebration of the sacrament of Penance.
Much more grave than the obligation of justice towards the penitent is the obligation of religion due to the sacrament. The Catholic Encyclopaedia gives a brief explanation of the virtue of religion which essentially summarises the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas. (Summa Theologica 2a 2ae q.81) Religion is a moral virtue by which we give to God what is His due; it is, as St Thomas says, a part of justice. In the case of the sacrament of Penance, instituted by Christ, Fr Felix Cappello explains things well [my translation]:
By the very fact that Christ permitted, nay ordered, that all baptised sinners should use the sacrament and consequently make a secret confession, he granted an absolutely inviolable right, transcending the order of natural justice, to use this remedy. Therefore the knowledge which was their own before confession, after the communication made in confession, remains their own for every non-sacramental use, and that by a power altogether sacred, which no contrary human law can strike out, since every human law is of an inferior order: whence this right cannot be taken away or overridden by any means, or any pretext, or any motive.
The penitent confesses his sins to God through the priest. If the seal were to be broken under some circumstances, it would put people off the sacrament and thereby prevent them from receiving the grace that they need in order to repent and amend their lives. It would also, and far more importantly, obstruct the will of God for sinners to make use of the sacrament of Penance and thereby enjoy eternal life. The grace of the sacrament is absolutely necessary for anyone who commits a mortal sin. To mandate the violation of the seal is in effect to prohibit the practice of the Catholic faith. Some secular commentators have spoken of the seal of confession as being somehow a right or privilege of the priest. That is a preposterous misrepresentation: it is a sacred and inviolable duty that the priest must fulfil for the sake of the penitent and for the sake of God's will to redeem sinners.
A possibly misleading phrase in this context is where theologians say that the penitent is confessing his sins as if to God "ut Deo." (You can easily imagine secularists deriding the idea that the priest makes himself to be a god etc.) In truth, the penitent is confessing his sins before God. The priest acts as the minister of Christ in a sacred trust which he may not violate for any cause - precisely because he is not in fact God. By virtue of the penitent’s confession ut Deo, the priest absolves the penitent and, if mortal sin is involved, thereby readmits him to Holy Communion.
There will be more to follow on the sacrament of confession. As I mentioned in my previous post, this series is not intended as a guide for making a devout confession but rather as an introduction to some canonical and theological questions regarding the sacrament which have become important recently. (For a leaflet on how to make a good confession, see my parish website.)
I have been told that the threat in Ireland to introduce a law compelling priests to violate the seal of confession has been withdrawn, at least for the time being. Nevertheless, I will continue with these posts because I think that the Irish proposal will be picked up by other secularists and may pose a problem for us. Further posts will look at the proper place, time and vesture for hearing confessions, one or two more particular crimes in canon law, the question of jurisdiction and the much misused expression “Ecclesia supplet”, and, of course, what to do if the civil authority tries to compel a priest to break the seal.
You are depending upon such as Scofield to teach you Christianity?
We are born in sin; with the Grace of God, we may gain our eternal Salvation, but we Christians throw ourselves on the mercy of Almighty God. We do not arrogantly proclaim our own salvation either on the Internet or in person.
It was for a reason. But you get so bored in regards to dispensations and rightly dividing the word of truth, I don't want to make you sigh with boredom yet again. Mark, it's never going to make any sense until you realize that Peter and the 11 were operating under the Gospel of the Kingdom commission, and that commission was set aside when Israel rejected Christ as their Messiah. We are now operating under the Dispensation of the Grace of God. And our commission is the preaching of the cross and the reconciliation God has provided by the finished work of Christ for us.
Given the Ted Haggard example, the male pastor wears the dresses (explains the dress obsession) and hires male prostitutes. She is either having an affair with her girlfriend or with another pastor (example Benny Hinn).
So your claim is that Peter violated his commission by preaching to the Gentiles (and converting them etc), and Paul violated his commission by preaching mostly to the Jews? Is Peter going to hell for converting the first Gentiles? Is Paul going to hell for converting and overseeing converted Jews?
Honestly, I don't know how much else you can get wrong regarding Christianity. Let me ask you this: do you profess the Nicene Creed? If so, do you profess its meaning exactly the same was as it was meant in the 300's?
But you get so bored in regards to dispensations and rightly dividing the word of truth, I don't want to make you sigh with boredom yet again.
I don't get bored. I watch children imitating adults in matters that they do not understand and I alternately giggle in unbelief, and have pity for those who are determined to tell God what is what.
Mark, it's never going to make any sense until you realize that Peter and the 11 were operating under the Gospel of the Kingdom commission, and that commission was set aside when Israel rejected Christ as their Messiah. We are now operating under the Dispensation of the Grace of God. And our commission is the preaching of the cross and the reconciliation God has provided by the finished work of Christ for us.
You might have a glimmering of an argument if it were not for the fact that Peter and the Apostles were given that Commission after Jesus died and Resurrected. Your hypothesis makes no sense whatsoever except as a hubristic separation from 2000 years of the Church.
It will be interesting if you answer the question, though.
Did you crash the server looking for that? Funny that you would go to all of that effort to dig up and present an an out of context interpretation of a post that is completely out of character with 9+ years of my posting history simply to score points with your anti-Catholic posse.
The work looks remarkably similar to opposition research done by MSNBC and the DNC. Do you do work for them too or are they simply organizations you admire enough to emulate?
You know, dear friend, I used to get irritated by these statements but now I realize that most of these statements is just plain ignorance of lazy people who have been influenced by others and have limited study of Christian faith. I used to be a protestant and was part of this group once.
I spend more time praying for ignorant people because I realize the grip of pride that leads to ignorance
I will pray for you at Adoration this coming week
You have the basis for the answers to all the questions you asked me in Acts. From Acts Chapter 1 to Acts Chapter 28, you will find your answers. WHY Peter converted the first Gentiles and WHY Paul preached to the Jews. But it's wasted time after it's been explained over and over to the same result.
You are sincere in your beliefs. I am too. One of us is right. Regards, smvoice
I understand ,dear friend,it's all about something new founded by you that even the reformers did not know -it's all about your new age unhistorical interpretation and guessing
Are you a free republic prophet now?
We are not pure enough in the to see God. It’s Scriptural. You know, the stuff the Catholic claims it wrote. Were they wrong after all?
1 Corinthians 15:35-57
35But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
Mystery and Victory
50I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55 “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”
56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Seems you are avoiding the question. Hiding behind the mantle, or should I say skirts, of hurt feelings? So which of the following are charlatans; Simon, who is called Peter, Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
How about Matthias who took the place of Judas, or Paul of Tarsus, Barnabus, or Andronicus and Junia who were "of note among the apostles? What about Silas, Apollo and Timothy?
A Catholic criticizing another for human sacrifice when they claim they offer up Jesus for their sines themselves, or by a priest?
Do you not see the irony in that?
*sigh* sines = sins
Couldn’t catch it in time.
Oh, shame on you. Did you say that simply to inflame or to hurt? If (and that is a big if) you ever really were a Catholic you would know that Catholics celebrate the one sacrifice, it is NOT a resacrifice.
Do you even have the foggiest clue what *forgiveness* means?
I’m sorry, I cannot seem to find the Scripture that says those you listed are priests. Preachers, apostles, teachers, elders, yes. But where are they referred to as priests? Thanks for your help..
Oh give it a rest. If Catholics can dish it out, they ought to be able to take it.
Want some cheese with that whine?
Romans 5:6-10 says, "For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His love toward us, in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life".
1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
"For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Isaiah 53:5-6 "But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed....and the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all."
I Peter 2:24, "Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed."
If Christ died for our sins, took our sins upon Him, and made us righteous before God could you tell me what we will be judged for? Do you believe that Jesus death and on the cross was not good enough?
But you have overlooked one little detail...There are no priests in the church that Jesus built...The veil is ripped wide open...We don't need priests anymore...
We have just as much access to God that any priest, bishop, cardinal or pope has...And in most cases, I'm sure we have more access...
This is Mass. Or could this possibly be wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.