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.
The Gospel is a very specific subset of Scripture and Scripture is a specific subset of the Revealed Word. The Gospels are the Good News, the written record of Christ's words and deeds.
The people in Africa and elsewhere are not getting AIDS because of a lack of condom usage, they are getting AIDS because they are participating in dangerous and sinful behavior.
Your logic is equivalent to blaming gang related shooting deaths on a lack of bullet proof vests.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Your questions suggest that you did not read my post. So I have no reason to believe you will read my answer to your questions.
Further the failure of condoms has generally tended to make the HIV-AIDS problem worse. The most effective program in Africa has turned out to be the abstinence/chastity program in Uganda.
<<.In fact, they even call the NT sans Paul’s epistles the Catholic epistles...>>
This is embarrassing. The so-called Catholic epistles get that name from their not being addressed to a particular person or community, but to all.
God gives grace to the humble. Nobody needs to go through another human being to receive grace to do anything. If God doesn't give it freely, it's not grace, it's something earned which makes it wages.
Doing something (going to confession here) to receive grace nullifies grace by having to perform an action to receive it.
Might I suggest a book by Mike Gendron, “Preparing Catholics for Eternity” http://www.pro-gospel.org/
Besides, the old nature cannot be *amended* or reformed. It must die. It's not a self-improvement program. It's death to self and the creation of a new man, passing from death to life. And we can't do that. Only God can give new life.
It's not about a remake program, trying to improve ourselves to make us acceptable to God, which we can't no matter how hard we try.
Even if any one of us could from the point of conversion on, lead a perfect, flawless, sinless life, it's already too late. The first sin we committed is enough to condemn us and if all we sinned in our lives was one sin, we'd be in no better position that we are right now, with all our faults and corruption.
James 2:10-12 10For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
Penance has no Scriptural basis.
While RCAs repeat the canard that Luther was alone in excluding the apocrypha, and that he did so for purely doctrinal reasons, he want not alone in his exclusions, and had scholarly reasons for doing so, besides some doctrinal ones. Controversy as to what constituted the canon went on for centuries and right into Trent. See http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#2
In addition, 2 Maccabees 12: 43-45 supports praying for souls who died because they were idolaters*, which is a mortal sin according to Roman Catholicism, for which there is no purgatory or deliverance, not a confessed sin or unconfessed venial sin which Purgatory is supposed to deal with.
It could thus be used to support praying for the dead i Hell, while nowhere in Scripture do we see such, nor praying to anyone in Heaven but the Lord.
*”Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.” (2Mac. 12;40)
“...Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain. (2Mac. 12;40) More: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Contentions_Purgatory.html#Contents
I thought that repentence and contrition, both of which are actions, were necessary for the grace of forgiveness. Are you saying that those actions nullify the grace of forgiveness, by being “actions,” ie “doing something”?
Have you read Kierkegaard’s _Works of Love_? Good stuff.
Here are some questions. If they are poorly formed, okay. That’s data too:
(1) Do you have to Go to heaven if you don’t want to?
(2) If someone has a “born again” moment, prays the sinner’s prayer, invites Jesus as Lord into his heart and his life. And then has doubts, is he saved?
No. Doing something to earn *grace* nullifies grace.
Grace is something we don’t deserve. If we work for it, it is no longer grace, it’s what’s due us - wages essentially.
If grace is given, it’s given before the repentance and confession to be able to so so, not after.
How can the human heart, which is deceitful above all else and desperately wicked, even be inclined to repent and confess without God’s grace in the first place?
God’s grace is necessary to get to even that point.
So, then, by the grace of God my Savior freely given to me, I confess my sins, acknowledge my sorrow and repentence to my confessor, and receive from him the statement that my sins are forgiven.
What is your problem with that?
You might want to re-think that.
“Martin Luther made it too easy and that is why he had such a following - “Faith Alone” is much easier than faith plus works and being judged on those works. Phil 2:12; Mt 7:21; Jam 2:14 -24.”
Once again you evidence a lack of knowledge in this issue, as sola fide mean faith alone appropriates justification, , versus morally deserving justification, but the Abrahamic type faith that is counted for righteousness is one that effects obedience toward its Object. Thus the Reformers formula is, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone.” [“Essential Truths of the Christian Faith,” Google books]
And s concerns this issue in the light of historical Protestantism, which is often charged with promoting faith without works, Martin Luther is recorded as stating, “Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life.”[Ewald M. Plass, “What Luther says,” page 1509]
In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is,
a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]
Scottish theologian John Murray of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, asserted, “Faith alone justifies but a justified person with faith alone would be a monstrosity which never exists in the kingdom of grace. Faith works itself out through love (Gal. 5:6). And Faith without works is dead (James 2:17-20).” “It is living faith that justifies and living faith unites to Christ both in the virtue of his death and in the power of his resurrection. No one has entrusted himself to Christ for deliverance from the guilt of sin who has not also entrusted himself to him for deliverance from the power of sin.”[Redemption Accomplished and Applied] [http://defendingcontending.com/2011/05/18/the-monstrosity-of-a-faith-that-is-alone]
Contemporary evangelical theologian R. C. Sproul writes,
The relationship of faith and good works is one that may be distinguished but never separated...if good works do not follow from our profession of faith, it is a clear indication that we do not possess justifying faith. The Reformed formula is, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone.” [“Essential Truths of the Christian Faith,” Google books]
Dr. Michael Horton (theologian) concurs by saying,
This debate, therefore, is not over the question of whether God renews us and initiates a process of gradual growth in holiness throughout the course of our lives. ‘We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone,’ Luther stated, and this recurring affirmation of the new birth and sanctification as necessarily linked to justification leads one to wonder how the caricatures continue to be perpetuated without foundation. [Are we justified by faith alone?” http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/are_we_justified_by_faith_alone.shtml]
In addition, upon hearing that he was being charged with rejection of the Old Testament moral law, Luther responded,
And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours. [Martin Luther, [”A Treatise against Antinomians, written in an Epistolary way”] More by Luther on works of faith.
The Westminster Confession of Faith states:
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love. [Westminster Confession of Faith, CHAPTER XI. Of Justification. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm]
The classic Methodist commentator Adam Clarke held,
The Gospel proclaims liberty from the ceremonial law: but binds you still faster under the moral law. To be freed from the ceremonial law is the Gospel liberty; to pretend freedom from the moral law is Antinomianism. [Adam Clarke Commentary, Gal. 5:13]
Likewise on on Titus 1:16 (”They profess that they know God; but in works they deny, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” KJV):
Full of a pretended faith, while utterly destitute of those works by which a genuine faith is accredited and proved. [Adam Clarke Commentary, Titus 1]
To which the famous Presbyterian commentator Mathew Henry concurs: “There are many who in word and tongue profess to know God, and yet in their lives and conversations deny and reject him; their practice is a contradiction to their profession.” [Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, Titus 1]
Also, the Puritan preachers were charged with making Christianity to narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomian controversy.
They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’” (http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html)
Finally, while RCs boast about how they have works along with faith, versus Prots, the evidence shows that evangelical faith manifests greater general commitment and conformity in core truths and moral views. http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html
Reread my post.
The problem is the order given in that statement I quoted, that one confesses and then receives grace or in order to receive grace.
"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. "
If someone has the ability to confess, grace has already been given to him. They don't receive the grace to repent by performing some action, like telling their sins to a priest, for him to dispense grace. Only God can give grace and if it's worked for (going to confession) it's no longer grace.
Besides, how can one confess sin before repenting? There needs to be the recognition of the sin first and the willingness to turn from it before someone is going to be inclined to confess it.
One repents in their hearts before the words come out of their mouths. It's only when someone really repents that someone is willing to confess.
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.