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.
You gave every appearance of considering yourself clever.
Yes, my Mom is a special and wonderful woman. I am very grateful God gave me such a great Mom. However, there is nothing she can do or give that will save my soul. What a strange thing to say! It is through the blood of Jesus Christ that I AM saved. He saved me by his grace and God granted me eternal life because I believed him and trust in his promises.
What saddens me about my Mom and any person who thinks as she does is that there is ANYTHING she can do to save herself. It is by grace through faith and that not of ourselves. When she faces pain or discomfort, she says she is "offering it up", "Offering it up for what?", I ask. "For my sins.", she answers. That does not sound to me like a person who is assured of eternal life because Christ is her Savior. She says, "That's just what we believe." when I try to show her from Scripture that her offerings can never take away her sins, but only through the shed blood of Jesus our Savior are our sins paid for. He has redeemed us, we do not redeem ourselves nor can we do that for others. That is the legacy that she has always known, and that is why she does not have the security of her salvation. She only hopes she might be saved if she has earned it. That is NOT the Gospel and it is NOT how our Heavenly Father desires us to live.
Wouldn’t that be a collective salvation you’re describing? God is not dealing with nations per se, during the Dispensation of the Grace of God. He is dealing with individuals, no respector of persons. Where there is neither Jew nor Greek. We come to Him individually. “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Rom. 10:9). “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Rom. 10:13).
ROFL!!! And what? What would the authority of the magisterium be without the Scriptures? Nil. Zero. Nothing.
The CCC? (Not the Civilian Conservation Corps) Have you even read it? What is it without the Scriptures? Nil. Zero. Nothing.
I trust the Word of God.
So you say.
Hmmm ... Protestants on this forum and elsewhere seem to like telling other folks what the other folks believe, regardless of reality.
Looks to me like Protestants don't trust the Word of God. Looks to me like Protestants trust their own interpretation of what the Jews and Catholics told them is the Word of God. Looks to me like Protestants, each individually, arrogate to themselves the very same charism of infallibility that they deny to the Pope. Your own words betray you:
The more I read the Bible, the bigger discrepancy I saw between what it said and what the Catholic church taught.
Who stands in judgement? By your own words, you do. It seems that in your belief system, what you see in the Bible, how you interpret the Bible, cannot be wrong. That's odd, really. Catholics read the Bible ... certainly I do, and I'm not alone. What I see is a vast gaping discrepancy between what "it says" and what the various Protestant groups teach.
We can't both be right.
It's kind of funny, really. Or it would be if it weren't yet another cosmic tragedy.
Some of the worst offenders have gone away. Others seem to have learned manners.
Rather than dredging up past misdeeds, let us rather continue to pray for ALL members of this forum, that we be increasingly conformed to Christ.
As irritated with MD as I am, that is simply not fair. YOU are the one who accused him of using intimidation tactics in your own post 652. What intimidation tactics (laughable for anyone who knows him) did he use?
A su servicio.
May God abundantly bless them with the Graces of repentance and conversion.
Thanks for saying that yet one more time. Each their own pope, funny, if it weren’t so dumb.
It’s the 800lb gorilla in the room.
I'm afraid that makes no sense. When Jesus offered himself to the Father was it not to pay our debt? So he offered his life both to us and for us to the Father.
We do not have Jesus to offer...He's sitting on a throne in heaven...
We will never agree on this because your idea of God and time is so different from ours. To me it appears that you make God subject to time.
As to your remarks about captivity, if no one in your group sinned it might make sense. But I agree with Luther that without Jesus our will is in bondage ab initio (since the Fall) and in a certain sense even after we accept Jesus into our hearts. I see that captivity right here on the RF and not just among Catholics either.
Also, in that Paul says, "Now I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me," and "The Holy Spirit prays in us with sighs too depp for words," it is not, strictly speaking, we who offer Christ to the Father, But Christ's self offering in us.
But the main difference is the difference in the thinking about time and eternity.
Not really such a big mystery. God cannot look upon sin, it will not be in his presence and, when Jesus was hanging upon the cross, he was bearing all the sins of the world that ever was and ever will be. So the Father not so much "turned his back on Jesus" but rather could not look at the Son who was "made sin for us".
2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Philippians 2:13 ......for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
God is even the one to give us the will to do good works. He puts that desire in our hearts.
I actually like pnsn. We used to have a lot of difficulty, but found ourselves with our backs to the wall on a Sarah Palin thread. Since then, I cannot look at pnsn in the same way. No matter what, I like pnsn, the little dickens. ;-D
She may be in the room, but she is only posting about one a month lately.............
That would leave The Catholic Church depending on Scripture for their beliefs. The first two I listed are obvious, as they are found no where in Scripture. The Holy Spirit is the authoritative teacher of the church (John 14:26; 16:13; 1 John 2:27). Scripture is the only infallible interpreter of Scripture.(Acts 17:11). And finally, that Peter had no successor.
These are just a few things that would be different WITHOUT the magisterium and WITH the Scriptures only.
John 14:3-4 No more means Heaven is a physical place than the previous verses mean there is a mansion in Heaven.
Jesus died here on earth. He didn’t die in heaven. If he had died in heaven, outside of time, you’d have a case. He didn’t. He died bound within the confines of this time/space continuum.
You are left to grapple with this passage then. It states otherwise. Jesus died and ascended. He is seated in heaven at the right hand of the Father. It says so, in so many words.
Hebrews 10
1For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,
“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
6in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”
8When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
15And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”
17then he adds,
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
18Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
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.