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.
Dear metmom,
I’m sincerely sorry that you have “only met a handful of Catholics such as (Mad Dawg)”.
Since I decided to become a Catholic 62 years ago, I have met many Mad Dawgs—(male and female) :-)
The first one was my late-great husband, who went home to God recently. He so enriched the lives of all who knew him and so great was his faith in God that I had these words carved on his gravestone: “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord. Loving mercy surrounds him. Psalm 32”. One of our friends, a deacon, told me that my husband was the most influential person in is life.
I have had the privilege of knowing many truly amazing Catholics, who have candled my way in faith now for all these many years. And they have been people who pray the Scriptures (lectio divina) and gather together for charitable and apostolic works—oh, my, there’s that word “works”. Shall I say, rather, deeds of mercy and encouragement.
Sometimes life can be like the nightly news reports—we only hear the bad stuff. Yet we all know that most of the “good stuff” never gets a hearing.
Mad Dawg, it calls to mind today’s Gospel reading: Nathaniel’s life and deeds were known to the Lord alone, yet Jesus knew the unknown goodness of Nathaniel’s life and said of him: “he is a true Israelite; he is a man without guile.” The other “Mad Dawg”s that I have known in my life were all like that.
mm, I’m truly sorry that you were not able to see and know them.
Dear boatbums,
I’m glad to read that you take your Mom to church in her old age. I’m also old, most likely close in age to your Mom, and fortunately I can still get myself to Mass every day. But if that were not the case, I would be very grateful if one of my children saw to it that I was able to go.
I think I understand a little about your Mom even if I don’t know any more about her than what you have written in your posts.
I’m thinking that she is loving and responding to God in the way she knows how and that He sees that with a loving heart. He can’t turn away from us when we call on Him.
The Psalms are so wonderful in expressing this for us better than we are able to do.
Perhaps one could think of it as your Mom’s way of saying, as the Good Thief did: “Remember me when You come into your kingdom.” Now THAT was faith.
What we (all) are now is not so well known to everyone else as it would seem. But God knows.
If Catholics believe that Mary is the mediatrix of grace, and that "The Virgin Mary is to be called Queen not only on account of her divine motherhood but also because by the will of God she had a great part in the work of our salvation...In this work of redemption the blessed Virgin Mary was closely associated with her Christ...Just as Christ, because He redeemed us, is by a special title King and Lord, so too is Blessed Mary, our Queen and our mistress, because of the unique way in which she co-operated in our redemption. She provided her very substance for his body, she offered him willingly for us, and she took a unique part in our salvation by desiring it, praying for it, and so OBTAINING IT..." - Ad Coeli Reginam. Pope Pius XII.
Why offer Him back for the sins of the world, when one needs only to pray to Mary? She has, according to what I just posted, already obtained it by desiring it. It seems either her prayer wasn't answered or the whole world is already saved because of her prayer and desire. So what is the point of continuing to pray for the salvation of the world? It's accomplished, according to the above.
We know that according to Exultavit Cor Nostrum: "We could not find a more powerful protectress or one more irresistible before God. She is for us the best of mothers, our safest confidante and in fact the very motive of our hope; she OBTAINS ALL SHE ASKS FOR and HER PRAYER IS ALWAYS HEARD." Exultavit Cor Nostrum. Pope Pius IX.
Either her prayer was answered and the world has already saved collectively, or her prayer was not answered. It cannot be both ways. Can it?
Real? Heaven is not comparable to any physical place that we know of.
Not that Christ cannot be worked into every post I give, but, the subject was HEAVEN.
And who is the Creator?
Why do you have a seemingly knee-jerk reaction to this? When Christ is the subject, Christ is spoken of in great lengths.
The emphasis by Paulians is on Paul and snippets of Paulian verse. Christ is the window dressing for such as these; it is Paul that is the object of worship.
“The quality of posting on this forum has improved greatly on in the last couple of months.”
I think it has in some ways improved; but still the threads often seem to devolve into being “about a poster” and not about the topic (like has happened on this thread).
I don’t come here very much anymore, because I think I became discouraged with so much of the negativity and —vitriol-—that colored this forum some months ago.
Most likely I’ll now be happy to go back to reading here occasionally, and once in a great while, posting something.
Well, it DID make me laugh, too. ;o)
So, just because it’s not here on earth, it’s not *real*?
Define *real*.
I would submit that heaven is far more *real* than anything we encounter here. It takes quite a bit of hubris to use this fallen corrupt world as the standard by which we measure reality.
Hebrews 8
1Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”
I do not see any connection at all between my question and your response. Nevertheless in the fond and foolish hope that if I answer your question you may answer mine:
It is not in unassisted Man's power to be obedient to God's Word. If God grants both grace to will and grace too perform then God works in the man to render him obedient. But Fallen Man without grace cannot do much that is good.
And again, by the graceful working of God "both to will and to do for His good pleasure" Man can reject man made teachings.
Dominic became aware of his call when he encountered heresy in northwestern Italy and what was to become southern France. The charism of the Dominicans is to preach the Gospel while living the evangelical counsels. It is a high standard and frequently they fail to live up to it.
But in Hanoi, China, Japan, Central America, and the Caribbean, and earlier in Eastern Europe and Tartary, Dominicans witnessed with their lives and deaths to the Gospel of Christ. So I'd say Dominic did a LOT in that regard.
Ah! Victim hood - a cry for sympathy now?
You utterly mistake me. I think it funny, though not unimportant, that YOU complain that I am intimidating you. Most people mock me as the biggest wussy and the least intimidating guy they know. I think your complaint was funny.
But I also thought it was utterly unjust. And so it was worthy of note. So gross an injustice requires the sunlight of public knowledge. As vampires cannot live in sunlight, so such ridiculous accusations will face when subjected to public view.
Praise God for His Word - It accomplishes what HE WANTS it TO!
Praise God for His Incarnate Word. HE accomplishes what The FATHER wants HIM to."
Are you just as confident in your belief of who Mary, his mother, is - in HIS KINGDOM vs. who Jesus says His mother is? I don't know where this change of subject came from, but seeing no contradiction between what our Lord said and what the Catholic Church teaches I am calmly and happily confident in the Immaculate, Assumed, and Crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth, whom all generations have called blessed, and whom, under her Son, I wish to serve with all I have and am.
From past experiences with you...
To the best of my recollection, the only past experience we have is your dodging questions, claiming immunity from logic on the grounds that you are informed by the Spirit, and my shattering your arguments as a hammer shatters ribbon candy.
You are wrong, Mark. Paul is no more worshipped than Peter. But you will never be convinced of that. No matter how much Scripture is offered or how many times the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of the Grace of God is explained, it is dismissed. And the accusations of Paul worship fly. You either desire to study the Word of God rightly divided or you don’t. It’s not my decision to make. But I can and do tell you before God that Paul is no object of worship. Regards, smvoice
I'm intrigued by the question. The only 'collective' I had in my alleged mind was the "as many as received him."
So, I need help in understanding the question.
Yes it was...
Nice to see that you are pleading guilty to heresy.
Paul was called a heretic for believing the scriptures...We still have that today, don't we...
Let us see your quote in context.
Acts 24: 1Five days later the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and an advocate, a certain Tertullus, and they presented formal charges against Paul to the governor. 2When he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, “Since we have attained much peace through you, and reforms have been accomplished in this nation through your provident care, 3we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all gratitude. 4But in order not to detain you further, I ask you to give us a brief hearing with your customary graciousness. 5a We found this man to be a pest; he creates dissension among Jews all over the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazoreans.* 6He even tried to desecrate our temple, but we arrested him.b 7* 8If you examine him you will be able to learn from him for yourself about everything of which we are accusing him.” 9The Jews also joined in the attack and asserted that these things were so. ***** You used Acts 24:14 as evidence that Paul was accused of heresy for believing the Scriptures.
Paul was not accused of heresy. You got it boneachingly wrong yet again.
We speak more probably of the Holy Spirit...Jesus is not here nor does he get sucked into a cracker every time a Catholic priest waves a magic wand and says a few precise words...
When you guys speak of the Holy Spirit it is ordinarily as an excuse or justification for whatever idiot idea is posted. That qualifies in my book as sinning against the Spirit. Ridiculing Christ is hardly Christian idealism either.
And what does the Holy Spirt lead us to??? The teachings of Jesus in the Gospels...Spend a little time in a Protestant church service and you will hear plenty of what Jesus taught...
I have spent far more time than I care to mention in Protestant self worhip barns and Protestant ego trip institutions. I rarely hear what Jesus taught. I hear mostly self-promotion and depending on the particular group, different doses of prosperity gospel (for the people) and comic book tract lunacy. Occasionally, in a WELS or LCMS service or high church CofE, I see a closer imitation of the Mass.
I've been in far too many CofC and Methodist services to heed your statement with any seriousness.
The Holy Spirit indwells and works in the hearts of believers, the church...And where do we find this knowledge and instruction about the Holy Spirit and the church??? In the Gospels??? NOPE...In the Pauline epistles...
Just another reason to hate Nicea. They shot your vision of Christianity down. There is no Christ in your Christianity, is there? Christ in name only; Arius was wrong.
Born again Christians who are inclined to study the scriptures, study the scriptures...Why you Catholics have so much disdain for the Pauline epistles may not be such a mystery...There's plenty in those epistles that condemn your religion...
Actually there is nothing that condemns Christianity. However, we do not admit that a man's words are greater than Our Lord's words. John chapter 1 might provide a clue for those who cling to heresies.
Yes it was...
Nice to see that you are pleading guilty to heresy.
Paul was called a heretic for believing the scriptures...We still have that today, don't we...
Let us see your quote in context.
Acts 24: 1Five days later the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and an advocate, a certain Tertullus, and they presented formal charges against Paul to the governor. 2When he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, “Since we have attained much peace through you, and reforms have been accomplished in this nation through your provident care, 3we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all gratitude. 4But in order not to detain you further, I ask you to give us a brief hearing with your customary graciousness. 5a We found this man to be a pest; he creates dissension among Jews all over the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazoreans.* 6He even tried to desecrate our temple, but we arrested him.b 7* 8If you examine him you will be able to learn from him for yourself about everything of which we are accusing him.” 9The Jews also joined in the attack and asserted that these things were so. ***** You used Acts 24:14 as evidence that Paul was accused of heresy for believing the Scriptures.
Paul was not accused of heresy. You got it boneachingly wrong yet again.
We speak more probably of the Holy Spirit...Jesus is not here nor does he get sucked into a cracker every time a Catholic priest waves a magic wand and says a few precise words...
When you guys speak of the Holy Spirit it is ordinarily as an excuse or justification for whatever idiot idea is posted. That qualifies in my book as sinning against the Spirit. Ridiculing Christ is hardly Christian idealism either.
And what does the Holy Spirt lead us to??? The teachings of Jesus in the Gospels...Spend a little time in a Protestant church service and you will hear plenty of what Jesus taught...
I have spent far more time than I care to mention in Protestant self worhip barns and Protestant ego trip institutions. I rarely hear what Jesus taught. I hear mostly self-promotion and depending on the particular group, different doses of prosperity gospel (for the people) and comic book tract lunacy. Occasionally, in a WELS or LCMS service or high church CofE, I see a closer imitation of the Mass.
I've been in far too many CofC and Methodist services to heed your statement with any seriousness.
The Holy Spirit indwells and works in the hearts of believers, the church...And where do we find this knowledge and instruction about the Holy Spirit and the church??? In the Gospels??? NOPE...In the Pauline epistles...
Just another reason to hate Nicea. They shot your vision of Christianity down. There is no Christ in your Christianity, is there? Christ in name only; Arius was wrong.
Born again Christians who are inclined to study the scriptures, study the scriptures...Why you Catholics have so much disdain for the Pauline epistles may not be such a mystery...There's plenty in those epistles that condemn your religion...
Actually there is nothing that condemns Christianity. However, we do not admit that a man's words are greater than Our Lord's words. John chapter 1 might provide a clue for those who cling to heresies.
If you were born after Paul was given his commission by the Risen Christ, you would be following the Gospel of the Grace of God, for a pattern for life everlasting.
You see? Even you (and I had not imagined it before) are following the gospel of Arius, not Christ.
Paul's importance is no more or less important than Peter and the 11. They were both given specific commissions for specific people for specific purposes. One concerns a Kingdom of believers, and the other concerns a Body of believers. All following Christ and having faith in His promises to them. The point is to understand WHICH promises are to a kingdom of believers and WHICH promises are to a body of believers.
Then why did Peter convert the first gentiles? Why did Paul spend most of his time (read about his travels) with the Jews and not the Gentiles? Why was Peter the first bishop of Rome, and not Paul? James was at Jerusalem. But Peter was at Rome. Why? Which of the five original Sees was headed by Paul?
Awesomely great objection! I think we need to have a council or an Inquisition or something.
I'm only going to answer (for now) as it were from afar. I would say that you are "dividing the person". Your formulaic answer is that I am "confounding the natures." And you could make a good case because the Divine nature cannot die.
The sort of broad sketch of my answer is that just as God's eternity "includes" time and transcends it, so his life includes death and transcends it. (or, as I prefer to say, "co-opts" it, making death the gateway to life."
Look, I simply LOVE Hebrews! I think I will treat myself to reading it in adoration on Thursday. There is something about that epistle that charms me in the deepest way.
I don't offer the following as refutation. It could not serve for that. But for me everything God does is "once," just as every time for Him is "now."
From http://www.justforcatholics.org/a184.htm:
Of more importance than the historical origin, is the reason why Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays, and why they fast and practice other forms of abstinence.
Abstinence from meat on Fridays is still commanded by the Catholic Church.
The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent. Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday" (Code of Canon Law 1250, 1251).
The application of this precept varies from country to country. For example, American bishops allow individual Catholics to substitute another penance if they could not abstain from meat.
The origin of these "prescribed days of fasting and abstinence" is uncertain. We know for sure however that it was not an apostolic practice. The apostle Paul condemned obligatory dietary rules for Christians (see Colossians 2:16-23).
Of more importance than the historical origin, is the reason why Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays, and why they fast and practice other forms of abstinence.
A Catholic website answers: “Friday is a day of abstinence from meat for Catholics in order that this little sacrifice will be a work of satisfaction for the sins they have committed...The Church is a mother and knows that unless we are constantly reminded we will not make satisfaction for our sins.” (www.netacc.net/~mafg/que4040.htm). Similarly the Baltimore Catechism states that “the Church commands us to fast and abstain, in order that we may mortify our passions and satisfy for our sins.”
So Catholics refrain from meat on Fridays (or perform some other sacrifice) in order to make reparation for their sins.
Jesus Christ made satisfaction for sin by shedding His precious blood. Why then does the Catholic magisterium prescribe fasting, and other human efforts, as additional means to make satisfaction?
We do not doubt that fasting is a beneficial spiritual discipline to humble oneself before God and as an expression of repentance. But we are never taught in the Sacred Scriptures that fasting and other personal sacrifices atone for sin. Though good in itself, fasting becomes a bad practice when used for the wrong purpose.
How can anyone say, “I trust in Jesus and His blood for my salvation,” while practicing abstinence and other forms of penance to make satisfaction for sin? What appeases God’s wrath? What reconciles sinners to God? How can we be justified, forgiven and cleansed? Is it by our puny little sacrifices such as eating salmon instead of beef? What an insult to God! What an affront to the blood of Jesus!
May God open our eyes to see the gravity of our sin and the glory of Jesus' cross. How I pray that our dear Catholic friends would turn away from human traditions and every attempt to make satisfaction by personal efforts. Listen to God’s Word and wholly trust in Christ whose blood cleanses from all sin.
And also, lest we forget:
The Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church states that the penitential days and times (such as Lent) in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent (Code of Canon Law 1250). In Code of Canon Law 1251 states that, abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance (Code of Canon Law 1252).
From http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_Catholics_eat_fish_on_Fridays
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, boatbums. I KNEW there was more to the story than was posted earlier.
We are subject to time...God works within our time frame, for the time being...God makes himself subject to time...
Joh 16:16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Certainly God is subject to time, while the earth exists...
God does things at certain, prescribed times...When we are in eternity, time will no longer exist...
mockery is merely
a creative EFFORT
to wake folks up from their
personally poisonous blind spots
. . . from their self-destructive death grips on
the spiritually deadly
bitterness, unforgiveness, hatred etc. that is eating them up from the inside out.
All the more so when no other approach scratches the polished cold granite surfaces.
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.