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.
Enjoy it, you finally got one right. BTW, it was a really good bottle of wine with dinner last, night.
I’m not talking about spiritusal discernment but about understanding the terms of art.
And I don’t see how what I said about what Aquinas said differs from the texts you quoted. I was thinking of those texts as I summarized Aquinas.
Do you not believe that there is an intellect or a will. Do you not think they were made by God for the purpose of knowing and choosing the good?
interesting.
Or not. And I'm not sure what claimed visions have to do with the question
Then you are throwing out major portions of Scripture.
We’ll see how that works out in the long run.
God treats His Word quite seriously.
Certainly some of such folks have overstated things and globally stated things that are not God’s highest as well.
However, those SCRIPTURES are GOD’S WORD AND HE MEANT WHAT HE SAID. And HE has the will and the capacity to back up what HE SAID. And, as Hagin and Copeland have demonstrated in thousands of lives—HE DOES.
The one with an EXPERIENCE need never be a victim of the one with merely a half-baked, UnBiblical argument.
BTW, how do you explain those verses to yourself?
Are they just chaff to you?
Or do you rationalize them away into nothingness?
What? A commitment to God or walking through the valley of the shadow of death.
Too late on both accounts.
I live on borrowed time. About thirty days to be exact when the last of the food I can eat drops out of my diet.
“If you learn everything except Christ, you learn nothing; if you learn nothing except Christ, you learn everything.” - St. Bonaventure
I agree with you. I’ve researched some of what they preach and believe and do not find it Biblically sound.
It puts those who don’t do it the way they say it should happen under judgment and condemnation. Been there, done that.
That’s why I have no use for much of Pentecostalism.
Does God heal? Of course. Sometimes miraculously and sometimes immediately and sometimes not.
But God has His purposes and He just could be working on something more important than our immediate personal happiness.
I don’t recall anywhere in Scripture that Job was told of the purpose of his suffering. The man born blind was still blind for years. Lazarus died before Jesus showed up. The man healed by the Gate Beautiful had been crippled for life. You think Jesus might not have walked by him countless times on his trips to and from the Temple. Everyone in Acts knew who he was. I kind of think Jesus, having been a local, knew too.
But it’s God’s timing and purposes. Not our petulant little demands for self=gratification and the easy way out.
Pentecostals are just as legalistic as the Baptists.
What makes you assume I never have?
So he was telling them that the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself was being superseded by a new command that went even further. We are to love each other as HE loved us and, unlike the on and off again love we may have for ourselves and others, this kind of love must be unconditional. That is how he loves us - unconditionally. Personally, I don't think that kind of love comes from within our old, human nature but MUST be through the Holy Spirit within us. I admit freely that I don't always measure up to this, but it is our ideal and should be our goal to love each other just as Jesus loves us. The world really WILL know we are his disciples if we demonstrate that kind of love.
God bless you!
God bless you also.
Life is short
and will soon be past
Only what’s done for Christ
will last.
We only have now to love. Yesterday can’t be retrieved—only redeemed— and tomorrow remains a mystery. The challenge is in the present moment—which is why the dear Lord gives life to us one minute at a time. It appears that it is all we can handle.
Jesus, I trust in You.
I’m not worried about how it will work out, I know what God’s Word says, I know sound doctrine when I hear it and read it, and both Hagin and Copeland are both Word of Faith, name it and claim it, Prosperity preaching fraudsters. Doesn’t take a Seminary grad to know this, and the people who they fool are people with no discernment whatsoever.
It’s been my experience and observation over 63 years
that
folks who take God’s word literally, at face value . . .
and earnestly attempt to apply it, lean on it, trust it
in their daily lives . . .
tend to find more miracles showing up in their lives than those who don’t.
God is still not fond of formulae . . . even His own to some degree . . .
HOWEVER, HIS WORD IS RELIABLE. WHEN WE FULFILL OUR PART, HE FULFILLS HIS PART.
DONE DEAL.
Near as I can tell, Hagin believes that Jesus’ physical death on the cross wasn’t enough for salvation, but rather that Jesus had to die spiritually and spend three days in torment in hell to complete salvation for mankind. He says that the cross is the place of defeat, not victory.
Scripture says that Jesus did indeed descend into hell but rather preached to those there and led captivity captive and gave gifts to men.
Copeland has a terrible track record and that alone disqualifies him from being credible.
I don’t believe any of the so called miracles they show on TV and all their theatrics of waving their hands and having people fall over are either staged or a result of hypnosis. There is no Scriptural precedent for any to that stuff.
Back to our regularly scheduled programming....
We can confess directly to God and there is no virtue in *religion*. *Religion* is a diversion to keep people from a living, vibrant faith in Christ. It accomplishes nothing but enslaving people.
Welllllllllll . . .
I wouldn’t want 100% of my utterances &/or deeds over 63 years to be scrutinized relentlessly.
Many of us have said idiotic things and done some really stupid sinful things . . . even idiotic claims of “God told me . . . “ before we learned better . . .
I think Copeland has been one of the more humble of the Hagin disciples. I don’t believe every word out of anyone’s mouth or pen.
I have been edified and strengthened in my walk with The Lord by both blokes.
Maybe my ‘spit-out-the-bones’ filters work better than some.
And, I don’t expect anyone but Jesus to be flawless and lily white.
Metmom,are you saying what it sounds like you're saying? I've read bazzillions of your posts over the years and they speak for themselves,but now they have even more gravitas (so to speak)knowing what you know.I'm not sure what to say.Now is where that 'being persuaded' by doing the work of God comes into it's own.I came to believe as an atheist,religion had zero part in my life and in a way I'm glad for that.What kept hitting me between the eyes was John 6:29 and many many of your posts have been a wonderfull confirmation of what God's Spirit has been showing me.God has blessed you and blessed us with you and through you.
Hope you don't mind my rant and I hope this doesn't all sound like a eulogy but the situation you are in is where the rubber trully meets the road! Between that rubber and that road there is precious little room for religion.
Grace and the peace that passes all understanding unto you dear sister.
Things being as they are it appears one way or another we will see you soon!
An admirable characteristic of all those who claim Christianity without actually believing in it, preferring their own concoctions.
So what is the catch?
I will say that you have no proof that Peter ever went to Rome to preach that gospel to all nations.
So you are arguing with me.
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.
The Christian Church understands what is in Acts. They also understand that Paul cannot get the events of his conversion straight in two separate accounts in Acts. You claim that the 'reasons' have been explained to me over and over. How about explaining them one last time with a little more clarity? They might take this time.
You are sincere in your beliefs. I am too. One of us is right. Regards, smvoice
I have never doubted the sincerity of your beliefs.
Nope. The theologically uninitiated and the amateur theologians who make all kinds of claims on this forum without Scriptural or Christian understanding are wrong. I have been privileged to have met a number of Christians with much greater understanding of God than I. I have also met a number of self proclaimed 'saved Christians' who have no more idea of salvation by Christ than my guinea pigs do.
Nope. That is precisely why I posted it. Catholic Christians get it. The fringe doesn't.
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.