I believe it is more properly called a compound.
I wonder if you become head compound goat that you get your own shopping cart...
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.
Not sure what you mean by the Roman 'church'. However the Nicene Creed does admirably well in separating the Christian sheep from the Gnostic (and other) goats. Don't recall if you profess it or not.
And I humbly say thank you...
Accepting others' credit again?
I believe it is more properly called a compound.
I wonder if you become head compound goat that you get your own shopping cart...
No, that's Gnosticism.
One of the ways that it is not arrogance is that we do not think we are superior to anyone...
You may wish to reread this thread.
We are trying to get you to believe God so that you may have that assurance yourself...
The odd thing is that exactly none of your Scripture passages show assurance.
Of course they do...But our bible doesn't end with the Gospels...
No, they are relegated to an afterthought. Don't you remember telling us that Paul was the one to whom we must turn to learn about Christianity? Didn't you assure us that the Jesus and the Gospels and the 11 plus Matthias were to the Jews only?
Molest them not with the Nicene Creed. They have a better way...
Power and control is what being a ruler is all about. And property seizure and persecution of “unbelievers” was standard practice for Popes and potentates.
Sadly, it was quite common for a number of Popes. Not all of them measured up to the standards of Benedict XVI.
A rhetorical question if you wish but even if you say yes the brevity of time available to a person to implement even good ideas negates those efforts.
And who knows what a successor will do?
Which explains why I've never thought the Reformation was really a reforming as much as a struggle for power. As the fellow in “The Patriot” says about prefering one tyrant far away to having three hundred close at hand.(or something similar).
It was with those thoughts about the inevitable failure of human rulers in mind that I posted those threads about the Kingdom.
Cheers!
Interesting how the Nicene and Apostles creeds leave out Popes, Rome, “priests” remitting sin, etc...
Pius "the infallible" condemned, separation of church and state. Said the church had power to use force, could be the only religion of the state, comdemned free speech, must be Catholic to be saved, etc...
It's about temporal power or at least it used to be. Vatican II buffed off the rough edges. Many of the statements in the "syllabus" that were condemned are now ignored.
They also leave out the Reformation, Geneva, Worms, televangelists, and schisms. Anymore "keen" observations or synapse firings you would like to share with us? They are professions of faith, not administrative manuals.
"Interesting how the Nicene and Apostles creeds leave out Popes, Rome, “priests” remitting sin, etc..."This one seemed to be sort of a glaring omission.They also leave out the Reformation, Geneva, Worms, televangelists, and schisms. Anymore "keen" observations or synapse firings you would like to share with us? They are professions of faith, not administrative manuals.
"...Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
What was true in 1302 was still true in 1517. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church........
Unam sanctam ecclesiam catholicam et ipsam apostolicam urgente fide credere cogimur et tenere, nosque hanc frmiter credimus et simpliciter confitemur, extra quam nec salus est, nec remissio peccatorum,
Translation: WE ARE COMPELLED, OUR FAITH URGING us, to believe and to hold—and we do firmly believe and simply confess—that there is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.
If we let you "interpret" Catholic history for us we might as well read it from the editorial page of the New York Times or hear it from Ed Schultz. What was actually affirmed by Pius was:
"We are told by the word of the Gospel that in this His fold there are two swords—a spiritual, namely, and a temporal. […] Both swords, the spiritual and the material, therefore, are in the power of the Church; the one, indeed, to be wielded for the Church, the other by the Church; the one by the hand of the priest, the other by the hand of kings and knights, but at the will and sufferance of the priest."
When Pope Pius IX issued his encyclical Praedecessores Nostros condemning the English policies in famine stricken Ireland the British press went into full attack mode. You, dear Bkaycee are still dancing to their tune and eating their garbage.
I agree, God’s Word is reliable, but not Hagin or Copeland’s “Theology”.
These are guys are as big a fraudster as Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, et. al
Your experience over 63 years is made nill by the fact that you lack discernment.
1. It is impossible to flush the ESSENCE of Hagin and Copeland’s theologies without flushing significant Scriptures.
2. They are markedly better than a list of others.
3. No one’s theology is pristine.
4. Thanks for the personally worded assault on my discernment.
5. Eternity alone will tell the 10’s of thousands who were healed and brought into the Kingdom of God through Hagin and Copeland’s ministries.
6. God is well able to deal with their errors and excesses.
7. I do NOT discern evil intent, evil hearts in either one of them.
8. We’ll see who’s discernment ranked highest in eternity.
"We are told by the word of the Gospel that in this His fold there are two swords—a spiritual, namely, and a temporal. […] Both swords, the spiritual and the material, therefore, are in the power of the Church; the one, indeed, to be wielded for the Church, the other by the Church; the one by the hand of the priest, the other by the hand of kings and knights, but at the will and sufferance of the priest."Nonsense.
John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34
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.