UHHHHHHHH
GOING BACKWARDS
is
NOT
a good way to facililtate healing
by God's Spirit, Christ's Broken Body.
BEINHEALTH.COM
is a much better, more consistently reliable route, for more people.
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.
Stfassisi did not say he needed to wait until adoration. You added the idea of "need" to what he actually wrote, and then argued against something he didn't say.
I simply address Him anywhere at any time because He is always listening and always with me.
Catholics do the same and for the same reason.
To me it seems as if you are arguing NOT against what we hold and do, but against some caricature presented in some anti-Catholic tract.
Threads like this seem more like the cul-de-sac at the end of Curse.
I think you are more accurately described as a Modernist. Pope Pius X dubbed the heresy of Modernism "the synthesis of all heresies”. It combines aspects of Relativism, Arianism, Gnosticism, Universalism, Syncretism and Religious Indifference. It is not a doctrinal or dogmatic difference with the Church; it is a belief that doctrine and dogma are somehow passé and of secondary importance to moral teachings. Modernism is the most prevalent and direct threat to the Church because it appeals to our vanities. It accompanies sectarianism and masquerades as enlightenment.
Human Pride gets in the way....the need to feel significant somehow....to die to ones self achievements is hard for most....harder still for those who have a church which requires they levels of achievement.
To accept the "finished work of Christ' in entirety means one can see the depravity of man in himself....that usually only occurs the closer we become to Christ in our relationship with him....the more we see Him for He he is... the more we also see how far from His righteousness we are.....but the more grateful we are and greater love for Him we have for seeing there really isn't anything in us worthy....
... But because He stepped in front of us...bearing the guilt and shame...and the death sentence for us...we are truly forgiven....and His Resurrection evidenced death is swallowed up in Victory .....So that..." NOW there is no longer ANY condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus."
Finished....Indeed!...otherwise...defeated and lost...
Yeah...gets pretty heavy and deep doesn’t it...
Awww...don't tell me you skipped Scofield's excellent allegory simply because he's not Catholic did you? I think he made a very important point, one that our Heavenly Father sincerely desires we understand. We are IN Christ, we have been bought with a price - his precious blood, yet you choose to toss it aside in favor of deserving it? Have you missed the parts where he says we DON'T and we CAN'T?
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.
How many times and in how many ways must God repeatedly tell you until you will believe him? Here's the good news: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
So who is being arrogant here? One who falls upon the throne of grace believing and trusting in God's promise that we shall not perish but HAVE eternal life or the one who says they throw themselves on the throne of God's mercy but refuse to accept what his mercy actually gives them?
Serious question: How do you know that you did this - for sure. E.g., is it measured by the amount of your certainty that you are going to heaven?
Would you have said the same to all those who bare a "thorn in their flesh".
If somebody wants to argue against something that's not true, I don't see a duty to play the part of his straw man.
Carry on. Those who agree with you will no doubt continue to agree with you. Far be it from me to disturb someone's dogmatic slumber. Sleep on, but I'm not getting in THAT bed.
Yes, I would like to comment. But there just isn't enough time left in this world to post all my comments. BTW: A "state of grace"? Yet another comment waiting.
I know. I just wanted to see if you would publicly agree with the Church and disagree with the anti-Catholic cabal.....What was I thinking.
I thought of the same thing. The only explanation for stfassisi’s promise that could “reasonably” explain it is that it was a kind of prophecy.
Exercise sounds like work to me. I thought you Calvinists were pick from a hat at the beginning of time and things like exercise were some heretical notion held by those stupid unelect Catholics. Welcome home!
Not just thanks, but glory and honor and majesty be to our God because victory in Christ is the ONLY victory that exists for all mankind. There would be NO victory apart from him so it is only logical that through Jesus Christ, and him alone, is there victory over sin and its consequences. We have been redeemed from the curse of the law through Christ's shed blood because without it we would STILL be under the curse and doomed for eternity.
To the same degree and for the same reason I believe He arose from the dead. Both equally hard to believe for non-Christians.
BTW - "Turned into" is a pretty crude and primitive way to describe transubstantiation, but I got your drift. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the body of Christ.
If you had the ability to travel back in time to the Galilee in 33AD with every scientific and forensic tool available and encounter Christ you would not be able to prove that he was both man and God. Similarly, if you examine the Eucharist with every scientific and forensic tool available today you could not establish that its substance was too both bread and the body of Christ. It makes it no less so.
D-fendr: Serious question: How do you know that you did this - for sure. E.g., is it measured by the amount of your certainty that you are going to heaven?
By the *this* I am presuming that you are referring to the exercising of faith, correct? I just want to make sure I understand what you're asking and answer the question you are actually asking and not what I may have thought you were asking, if you get my drift.
That's a good question. Let me sleep on that and formulate a response. I can say, however, that my certainty of going to heaven is not the measure of my faith or salvation, as everyone struggles with doubts at times.
And I realize that many people can be certain of where they are going but can be wrong. I would think that pretty much everyone here would conclude that muslims might be pretty certain that if they blow themselves up, they will enter paradise with all those virgins, and agree that they are still wrong.
A stfassisi “prophecy” could “reasonably” explain him telling metmom that getting back into the Catholic Church would heal her eating problems?...?? Let’s just, for starters, talk about the wafers. Are they gluten-free? I had no idea stfassisi was a prophet...
Oh no it isn’t the same degree and reason for believing He arose from the dead. God’s word TELLS us He rose from the dead. THe Vatican tells you a wafer and a sip of wine becomes Christ. Not even close to the same thing.
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.