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.
Is that how you Catholics discuss your religion??? You just post links to each other???
Scripture
I. Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins
John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, “as the Father sent me, so I send you.” As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.
John 20:22 - the Lord “breathes” on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord “breathes” divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.
John 20:23 - Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.
Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to “men.” Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles’ successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?
Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the “Son of man” has authority to forgive sins on earth.
Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus’ authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.
Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church.
John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ’s ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an “indulgence”).
2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as “in persona Christi”). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins.
2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance.
James 5:15-16 - in verse 15 we see that sins are forgiven by the priests in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man’s authority to forgive sins on earth. Then in verse 16, James says “Therefore, confess our sins to one another,” in reference to the men referred to in verse 15, the priests of the Church.
1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness.
Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.
Top
II. The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins
James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 – these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.
Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today.
Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist).
1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses.
1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But we must confess our sins to one another.
Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution.
2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin).
Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other.
Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse.
Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly.
1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, but, today, most Protestants no longer agree that there is such a distinction. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness.
Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved).
I am confused - does this mean that certain secular powers in Ireland are trying to subvert confession? And this could spread?
Please enlighten me.
I am confused - does this mean that certain secular powers in Ireland are trying to subvert confession? And this could spread?
Please enlighten me.
I am confused - does this mean that certain secular powers in Ireland are trying to subvert confession? And this could spread?
Please enlighten me.
Consider St. John, Chapter 20, verse 23 - after the resurrection in the upper room when the Lord had breathed the Holy Ghost upon them - He said Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them ; and whose sins you shall retain , they are retained. Your verses about calling upon the Lord for salvation are correct - Yet- exactly how we call upon the Lord after the upper room experience of those breathed upon now is moved to the forefront -He specifically gave the power to those in the room - These were the twelve. There is no denying that Jesus alone saves. Yet we must listen to his precise instructions - to reiterate read for yourself John 20 verse 23, as noted above
How can anyone heal too. It is only God who heals. Why a sinner could not do what God can do?
Except What?
God can heal a through a person but not forgive?
Well! Peter the sinner heals someone as an instrument of God! Yes!
ACTS 3:1"One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon. 2 Now a man who was lame from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts. 3 When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money. 4 Peter looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, “Look at us!” 5 So the man gave them his attention, expecting to get something from them.
6 Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” 7 Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man’s feet and ankles became strong. 8 He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God. 9"
Gee! They are Praising God at the end not Peter. Why is that if he is a sinner?
Hello!!
Then Why is this put in this scripture too? Notice that Matthew(Who is an apostle) puts:
"they praised God, who had given such authority to man.
Not a- man(singular) but to man(Mankind). Period! The apostle Matthew knew what he was writing here. Matthew had this ability. Men have the ability who believe. Authority.
It's in these verses:
"Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7 Then the man got up and went home. 8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man."
Notice again at the end:
"who had given such authority to man." Not a-man(singular) but to man(Mankind).
Jesus equates healing and forgiveness together.
Jesus can heal and forgive at the same time but not Peter when he can heal only the lame with authority. Nothing else. I do not think so.
The authority comes from here:
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
"As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”
John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.
John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.
John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.
I think this is the only two group anointings I think in scripture.
One anointing is with the disciples or apostles only yet the other is with all believers in the room.
Notice when Christ breathes (John 20) on them(the apostles only) yet than the day of pentecost Acts 2 which was the Holy Spirit on all believers not just the disciples only .
If everyone is a same style priest why would this be separate from the other anointing. This does not make sense unless there is a separate order or level of priesthood. One has just the apostles yet the other has everybody who is a believer in the room.
This does not make sense unless a level of authority.
Then you would have to think why a level of authority or priests. Both Protestant and Catholic believe in priests but mainly the Catholics or Orthodox believe in a level of priesthood.
Could you explain otherwise?
It seems to me these two incidents or events should be the same. But somehow they are not. Why?
Peter was an Apostle.....they were given special abilities at that time as we know to support the Gospel message. Their are no Apostles today. We do however have God's word and the relationship with Christ He promised thru His Spirit.....
If one believes the Apostleship continued til today, thru the Priesthood, then they might naturally believe the priesthood has the Authority to heal..... Therefore you would assume, with thousands of Priests roaming the world, there wouldn't be so much illness and disease as we see today . That people would be following them like the crowds who followed the Apostles in order to be healed. But of course this is not happening.
"... Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” Jesus knew that forgiveness of sin was far more significant then healing the body. But man was looking more for bodily healing rather than inner healing from their sins and His forgiveness....and does today as well. Jesus referred to 'Himself' as Son of Man...in this scripture......not man himself.
I will have to wait to comment here.....going to work soon.
1 John 1:9 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
It is inconceivable that Jesus, knowing what was in the hearts of man and how easily corruptible mankind is, would give that kind of unbridled power to any man or group of men.
I know that is a proof text used by the Catholic church to justify its authority, but I don't believe for a minute that that is what Jesus is doing.
He is not and never did establish a religious organization and assign that kind of holding a person's eternal destiny over their heads power to anyone.
God has promised that HE would forgive our sins if we confessed. That's all we need and it certainly overrides any claims made by men otherwise.
Jesus forgives and saves. Not any church.
Jesus is our great high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the Father when He was done with his work.
He NEVER called the apostles *priests* nor did He ever state He came to institute another priesthood through which men were to come to Him.
Even if that passage could be loosely read as to mean that the apostles were indeed given the power to determine a person's eternal destiny, there is no instruction from Jesus on passing that on.
Even if someone were to appeal to the verse where all Christ followers are called *priests*, then that power would be given to all Christ followers, because Jesus makes no distinction.
What if you're wrong?
He is not and never did establish a religious organization and assign that kind of holding a person's eternal destiny over their heads power to anyone.
What if you're wrong?
God has promised that HE would forgive our sins if we confessed. That's all we need and it certainly overrides any claims made by men otherwise.
Jesus forgives and saves. Not any church.
That is the personal interpretation of a human, fallible, sinful, woman, you.
Christ Jesus gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom, called him the Rock upon which He would build His church, and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
Why would anyone bet their eternal life on their own fallible, sinful, mistaken understanding of Holy Scripture, rather than on the teaching of the Church which Christ Himself created and preserved?
INDEED.
No interpretation is to be placed upon a difficult and obscure passage (such as this one) that would place it in direct conflict with numerous other clear texts.
The fact is, though all Christians are to forgive one another, i.e., have a forgiving disposition (Eph. 4:32), ultimately, only God can bestow absolute pardon (cf. Psa. 130:4; Isa. 43:25; Dan. 9:9; Mic. 7:18; Acts 8:22). The Lord did not grant that right to the apostles or anyone else.
There is a biblical idiom whereby one sometimes is said to actually do what he is merely authorized to declare. Note:
Pharaoh’s butler said regarding Joseph, “. . . me he [Joseph] restored unto mine office, and him [the baker] he hanged” (Gen. 41:13). Joseph did not actually restore the butler to his office, nor did he personally hang the baker. He merely announced, by prophetic insight, what the fate of these men would be.
Did God appoint Jeremiah to actually destroy and overthrow kingdoms (Jer. 1:10), or merely to declare their destiny? The answer should be obvious. See also Ezekiel 43:3.
The Greek tenses of John 20:23 make it clear that the apostles were authorized only to announce the terms of forgiveness, and that upon the basis of God’s previous appointment. Literally, the text suggests: “Those whose sins you forgive, have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive, have not already been forgiven.” The first verbs in the two clauses are aorist tense forms, while the second verbs are in the perfect tense. The perfect tense verbs imply an abiding state which commenced before the action of the aorists. In other words, the apostles (and others since that time) were only authorized to declare forgiveness consistent with what the Lord had already determined. In a comprehensive treatment of this passage, noted Greek scholar J.R. Mantey pointed out that the Greek “fathers” never quoted this passage in support of the concept of absolution (see Journal of Biblical Literature, 58, 1939, pp. 243-249). For further comment, see: Boyce Blackwelder, Light from the Greek New Testament, Anderson, In: Warner, 1958, pp. 80-81.
Finally, this conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the apostles, on the day of Pentecost, in harmony with the Spirit’s guidance, did not personally forgive the sins of anyone; rather, they merely announced the conditions of pardon to which men and women were amenable. To believers who sincerely inquired: “. . . what shall we do?”, Peter responded, "Repent ye, and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins. . . " (Acts 2:37-38). Subsequently the reader is informed that: "They then that received his word were immersed. . . " (41). Hence, we conclude, upon the basis of this testimony, that by means of that word, they received the forgiveness of their sins.
John 20:23 does not sanction the modern Catholic clergy procedure of granting “absolution” from sin.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/763-can-man-forgive-sins
A humble and contrite heart he will not ignore. It does not mean exactly only by a priest. Because his mercy is great for all. Depending on how truly repent.
"And just what kind of man in the name of Christ would withhold the forgiveness of sins from someone who confesses?"
Well! You never knew people who lied about their actions who are not truly truthful. I can say I believe but go to bed with my neighbors wife or steal. Also to continue. I know a so called believer who believes once saved always. Yet he keeps bedding another women from the christian coffee house. He was married then married the other but still cheats. Whatever you retain or forgive. Sounds like a good reason for this.
Also if Peter heals with God then he also can forgive with God. It is a power of attorney( in place of God but with God)
. 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
. It does not mean God can not forgive outside of this statement.
His Divine Mercy is great for all as we live here on earth.
Then I would contend that he's not really a believer, but rather a wolf in sheep's clothing. Those tares that the enemy has sown in the world to confuse people and give the church a bad name.
Scripture is pretty clear about people who continue in blatant and unrepentant sin all the while claiming to be a believer. It just doesn't work. Talk is cheap and many will say, *Lord, Lord, didn't we _______ in your name?* and Jesus will send them away stating that He never knew them.
""Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." - Matthew 18:18
. If you believe 1John4 in the personal pronoun that means you have the Holy Spirit. A personal confession. You can only say it by the Holy Spirit. I have tested occult person who tried to declare she was Christian. She could not declare that Christ came in the flesh or the creeds that declare also in full. She would stumble or stutter but not declare that part.
Just being a Christian does not mean everybody understands or sees everything in scripture too. Also his mercy is always great. He does not have to be confined to one way. He has shown in scripture where He declares something but shows compassion in another way. Divine Mercy is ultimately God's only to use as He choses in man.
The Church was founded by Christ through Peter, whom He made the Church's earthly father (see Matthew 16:18-19)
The Church is one and unified, not comprised of 33,000 competing denominations. (see Matthew 12:25, 16:18, John 10:16, John 17:20-23, Acts 4:32, Romans 12:5, Romans 16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, Corinthians 3:3-4, Corinthians 10:17, Corinthians 11:18-19, Corinthians 12:12-27, Corinthians 14:33, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Ephesians 4:3-6, Philippians 1:27, 2:2-3, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Titus 3:9-10, James 3:16, 2 Peter 2:1),
The Church is universal(ie, "katholikos" in Greek, or "Catholic") (see Matthew 28:19–20, Revelation 5:9–10)
The Church is Apostolic (see Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 9:6-8, John 20:21-23, Acts 5:5, Ephesians 2:19–20)
The Church s hierarchical and has bishops (episkopos), priests (presbyteros or "elders"), and deacons (diakonos) (see Acts 1:20, Acts 15:2-6, Acts 20:28, Acts 21:18, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-2, 1 Timothy 5:17, Titus 1:7, Hebrews 11:2, 1 Peter 5:1, 1 Peter 2:25)
The Church is continuous, existing in a single unbroken Apostolic succession of the bishops (episkopos) to bishops through the laying on of the hands, to the original Apostles. (see 1 Timothy 4:12)
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.