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.
Yes, it does, regularly. In this life we can expect trouble, pain, loss and suffering BUT we also have the assurance from God that he works ALL things together for our good. Think back on the trials and problems you have faced in your life, then look at the woman you are today because of those trials. Every single one of those contributed to the person of faith you are today and your faith has matured through all of them. Sure, wouldn't we all love a carefree, blissful and problem free life, but like the saying, "If all we ever had was sunshine, we would be a desert.", we need the rain to grow.
You honor God by staying true to him throughout all the negative and heartbreaking problems of this life, because that is the true test of faith - when the going gets tough. I hope you see how much God loves you and that even when we walk through the valley of death - and we WILL walk through it - that he is with us and he comforts us and lifts us up so that together we learn to trust him even more.
..for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me. (Hebrews 13:5,6)
Fr needs a “like” button!
Thanks for the testimony.
BTW I just met a Baptist pastor who is interested in the contemplative “tradition” as manifested in Catholic Laity.
“Jesus, I trust is You” is the prayer I pray throughout the day.
It is the continual prayer of my Catholic friends,as well.
“Your food disorder and illness will be healed if you convert back to Catholicism/Orthodoxy and return to your faith of Baptism”
Jeremiah heard this sort of nonsense also.
Jer 8:10b-11. “from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when [there is] no peace.”
Not sort of. Look at your words. “it IS that sacrifice”. It’s tantamount to “re sacrifice”. The RCC has long ago left the true Biblical meaning of what Jesus called the church. From the rituals, the queen of heaven, a Vicar supposedly “in the place of” Christ, to most everything the RCC practices the extra Biblical formalities and requirements smack of a cult. I personally think the admonition most applicable is “come out of her”.
>> (as long as it is in the default font and color ...:-) )<<
Now there is something we can certainly agree on.
Romans 8:16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
This verse drove me nuts for years because I didn't understand it either. I was stuck in Romans 7, (too long to post, read it here) .
Anyway, I didn't want my certainty of my salvation to be based on emotion as I do not think that is reliable but nobody ever explained it well. Perhaps some others can add some of their insight and experience.
However, the witness can be in the fact that I hunger and thirst after righteousness. I have a strong desire to please God, but not out of fear, rather out of love.
One significant was was that Scripture made sense. I saw spiritual truths that I had not seen before. One example, surprisingly to me, was in Christmas carols. I had grown up hearing them as everyone has, but that first Christmas after my commitment to Christ, I can still remember the time we put on the old family record album (yeah that long ago) and I heard the Christmas carols and REALLY heard the lyrics and thought *WOW. I NEVER realized what that meant before*.
There is also the conviction of sin that I experience when I do something I shouldn't. I simply cannot deliberately lie to anyone and on rare occasion slip. If you ask me something, you WILL get either an honest answer or a *I'd rather not go there* response.
I do not steal and if the grocery store makes a mistake, even in my favor, I offer to correct it (they usually let it go) but I figure that if I'd complain when they cheated me, I ought to treat them the same way.
And I don't do it for brownie points, just for a matter of peace with God, knowing that I did the right thing even if nobody else does.
The fruit of the Spirit devloping in my life is another evidence.
Galatians 5:22-24 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Also, I was filled with the Spirit a while ago, and that was almost as significant as my salvation and far more meaningful because that time I knew what happened and what it meant. And I have no more doubts. That was too real an experience.
God’s goodness is not predicated on my personal circumstances.
That’s the problem so many people have. They fall for Satan’s lie that since God didn’t do _______ for them, He’s not real, He doesn’t really love them, He’s not really good, He’s not really powerful, He can’t be trusted, whatever.
The battleground is for the mind and Satan will lob his arrows there to try to confuse us and turn us from God.
Yes, and remember, even Lazarus - whom Jesus brought back from the dead - still died again.
And there, ladies and germs, is the nadir of our difference - we do not and cannot ever merit or be made worthy of eternal life. It is a gift from the grace of Almighty God, not based on our merit or worthy efforts.
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Since this is your answer to my request for a real question, I take it you think I am in the habit of lying and being dishonest. Is that your opinion of me personally? Do you ever think you will be able to get past the false notion that those who oppose Roman Catholic doctrines do so because we are "Anti-Catholics"?
TO me this is circular. If the Bible is what we say it is and the Church is what we say it is, then neither one is what those who disagree with us say it is.
Unarguable. And it doesn't move the ball an inch down field.
There can be no real reasoned discourse with those who state, emphatically, without reading Paul’s participation in the Jerusalem Council OR his letters or Epistles, that Paul was a Catholic priest.
Why not? Can you say why not, as though explaining it to an inquisitive five year old? (I'm not asking you to do so, I'm asking you if you think you can.)
TO me it's another instance of a circle. I disagree with your premises, so you disagree with my conclusions. Fine. Nothing to write home about there. If that weren't true you'd be Catholic or I'd be a dispensationalist. Horse races and all that.
To me, the thing is that you have a notion of the the 'real' Church is, and a notion the the Catholic Church isn't it. And if we accept your notion it follows that Paul was not a kind of almost 'proto-bishop'.
But we have other notions. TO us they make a sense consistent with the proper use of Scripture and the repudiation of that oligarchy which consists of rejecting the opinions of people who are not currently alive (as Chesterton sort of said.)
For me the Jerusalem Council is very important. Among the many implications is that the church progresses by adventuresome leaps into the new which are followed by controversy, review, and the establishment of principles.
So I can well imagine that in the early Church there were chaotic liturgies with the presiders praying, as I think Justin says, to the best of their ability. And then, as problems and differences arise, little by little the concepts emerge and are articulated.
And as befits a group led by someone in the shoes of the fisherman, it proceeds slowly, in fits and starts and reversals, with many missteps. And as befits a group led by the Spirit (as we see it) rather than decline from an initial purity, it advances, despite the human aspects of itself, in wisdom and grace.
It is, after all, the Buddhists who think that the Dharma declines from the height of the time that Shakyamuni taught through successive ages until a new enlightened one arises to turn the Dharma Wheel again. That is the world's idea. Ours is that God continues to save and guide.
Gotta go punch down the dough.
Amen, Amen and Amen!
So do I,which is why I don't post a lot on these threads.I'm not always sure of my own intentions,"the heart is deceitfull and desperately wicked,who can know it?"
A lot of the time the posts reveal the intention and it doesn't always line up with the words in the post.
I like to think that my greatest motivation is that there are those who believe yet do not know they are saved.A terrible position for a child of God to be in.Especially considering the extreme lengths God has gone to in order to reconcile us to Himself.
From your #1146 "But, strictly speaking, that does not imply that the only alternative is to tell oneself things about one's future."
True and I'll add that I needed to hear that.Thankyou.
grace and peace to you.
I don't think you're 'getting' the internalparadox of 'made worthy.' To say that one needs to be made worthy is precisely to say that the gifts,and there is more than one, are not based on OUR merits or worthy efforts.
If i thought that my salvation depended on me and my personal,self-supplied merit, heck, WHEN I thought that, I despaired. And when I despaired I heard the Gospel.
So, I live in gift, surrounded by gift. It is gift that directs my thoughts, intentions, aims. I could never say MY right hand and the strength intrinsic to my arm won the battle. But I can say that God, strengthening my arm and directing my will, and supplying me with a myriads of myriads of other gifts won the battle.
When I come to heaven I will say, "Take what is yours; I have nothing of my own to give you, gracious Lord. I am unprofitable, but full of wonder, love, and gratitude, which you, in your astounding generosity gave me to feel and enjoy."
The Mass, for us, MIGHT properly, if VERY carefully, be called a "re-presentation", but it is impossible that it be a re-sacrifice, because there is only the one.
You see, I suspect the problem is that the over-riding metaphysical 'canon' for your side of the argument is that one 'thing' could happen in many places and times and be the same. Yet God, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, does that "all the time".
D00d! Come on over. We live in central Virginia, and I just put rolls in the oven to bake. And I REALLY do not need to eat them all. But I bet they’re going to be good. I like chewy so I kneaded for 20 minutes.
Yes I think I can explain it to a five year old. By explaining that the Bible is God’s word to us. And He gave us everything we would need in order to be with Him in Heaven one day. And then we would sing Jesus Loves Me. And so it would go through the years, learning God’s word. Growing in the Scriptures. So as not to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.
You're allowed to chew!?! 8-)
Virginia's a long way from Oz but I'm persuaded that we will break bread together soon enough.
So far that’s how I would proceed — did proceed! Well I started by saying that God loved her, loved her better than I did. But there’s nothing in what you said so far.that contradicts Paul’s being a priest in the Catholic Church.
I would have no reason to tell her Paul was a priest in the Catholic Church. Because he said he was a preacher, an apostle, a teacher, a minister. For the Church the Body of Christ. In the dispensation of the grace of God.
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.