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.
Complete nonsense the new covenant Universal Church has been taught since Christ established the Church as people of God
If the Jews are the people of God there is no new Covenant and Christ only died for Jews with only Jews having a chance to get into heaven
But maybe you can provide me with Scripture to back up your claims
Are you saying there is no Scriptures to support Salvation outside Israel?
Even protestants could post many scriptures to say otherwise even though they think the Church is Invisible.
Are you Jewish?
It means you used the term Solo when I know that metmon is in all likelyhood Sola.
Opinion pieces don't carry the same weight of authority as Scripture.
Broad is the way to destruction and many there are that find it.
Lots of people saying something for a long time that disagrees with the clear reading of Scripture, still doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter what the church labels them or thinks of them.
It's so very telling that when there's a controversy in beliefs, Catholics reference tradition, the magisterium, the church fathers, appeal to a long history, etc, while Christ followers go straight to the source - Scripture.
The Mormons have more credibility than your religion...
Thay at least created their own bible and didn't have to pervert and trash the one God gave us like your religion does...
FR forum has been down this road at nausea and protestants mixing languages and misunderstanding of Greek and Aramaic never brings forth anything new
From Scripturecatholic.com(AGAIN!)
Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built
Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.
Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 - for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people's names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.
2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 - in these verses, God is also called "rock." Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:
1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).
Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.
Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”
Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).
Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.
Matt. 16:13 - also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.
Matt. 7:24 - Jesus, like the wise man, builds His house on the rock (Peter), not on grain of sand (Simon) so the house will not fall.
Luke 6:48 - the house (the Church) built upon the rock (Peter) cannot be shaken by floods (which represent the heresies, schisms, and scandals that the Church has faced over the last 2,000 years). Floods have occurred, but the Church still remains on its solid rock foundation.
Matt. 16:21 - it is also important to note that it was only after Jesus established Peter as leader of the Church that He began to speak of His death and departure. This is because Jesus had now appointed His representative on earth.
John 21:15 - Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," referring to the other apostles. Jesus singles Peter out as the leader of the apostolic college.
John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.
Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter's faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
Acts 1,2,3,4,5,8,15 - no one questions Peter's authority to speak for the Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built who feeds Jesus’ sheep and whose faith will not fail.
I'm not going to waste my time going round and round on this
Jesus is the rock on which His church is built.
Peter says so himself.
1 Peter 2:4-8
4As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
7So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
8and
“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
All true believers are Christ's representatives on earth.
“”Christ followers go straight to the source - Scripture.””
Try looking at this theory through the course of history
According to your theory you’re not taking into account that most the people could never know about Christ before the printing press and since the majority of people could not even read for over 1000 years and the only source for the masses of people to hear Scripture was in the Catholic Church interpreted through Catholic tradition(which you reject) means to you that Christ needed to wait for literacy rate to increase for people to know about Him
Don’t you see how ridiculous your sounding ,dear sister
Yes, that IS what I am saying. I am right now, at this moment justified, sanctified and purified, I have been made righteous by the blood of Jesus Christ and I am IN HIM, not having my own righteousness but the righteousness of God IN Christ. If I were to die at any time I would be in Heaven the next moment with God.
This is the amazing grace of God and it is looked at as "heresy" by some "religious" people who rely upon their OWN righteousness to earn them heaven. The cross is "foolishness" to them because they have not understood that through Christ and him alone are we ever made righteous enough to be in the presence of God. So, to answer your question about my current purity, YES, I am cleansed as white as snow and that is the ONLY way anyone will be saved - IN CHRIST. I find it hard to understand why some of you just don't GET that.
Now, in the nasty here and now of this natural life I lead, I deal with sin and failure just like everyone else does. I am human and my old nature is still in conflict with the new nature - just as Paul said it would - but I have the remedy of being able to talk to my Heavenly Father about it and he forgives me, sets things right, gives me strength and growth to do better every day. I am not - nor is anyone else - saved based on how "pure" I can be or make myself be. That is why Jesus was made flesh for us and he gives to us HIS righteousness - HIS purity. That, and ONLY that, is why I can say I know I have eternal life.
Actually the Apostles AND the prophets with Jesus as the chief corner stone (Rock).
Eph. 2: 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Once again the RCCs try to change what scripture really says.
The RCC singling out Peter is a power grab trying to put the Pope “in the place of” Christ. (Vicar of Christ (from Latin Vicarius Christi)
>> I'm not going to waste my time going round and round on this<<
Over and over again, as I showed in my previous post, the only rock that God says the church is built on is God Himself. He knows of no other. Yet the RCCs try to misapply one verse to usurp the words of God to take control for themselves.
The Greek that you have is NOT the Original Greek as you previously claimed...
The excerpt from Strong's is not my claim. I quoted it. Can you not tell the difference?
Since I don't post lies, your question has no meaning.
Is that coming from the right or the left side of your mouth... Sorry, but you have already been caught, again...
Posting an attributed quote is lying? Are you telling us that unreality extends to every facet of your existence, and not just theological?
It doesn’t matter who did what first. That is not a commission.
Let us examine Scripture for the real truth. Let us turn to:
Matthew 28: * 16f The eleven* disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. 17* When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted. 18* g Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19h Go, therefore,* and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20i teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.* And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
Jesus told the Apostles to evangelize the whole world, not just the Jews, and long before Paul was converted.
I believe the Scriptural account of the commissioning.
No, you don't. And that is what is so puzzling. You claim it but you don't do it.
Amen! Even the Old Testament saints “got it”.
With this, your facing Kolob to pray and a host of other theological brainfarts we are getting a much better idea of who and what you really are.
True believers of what? There have been some breathtaking heresies smugly proclaimed on this thread. Do the heretics count in your count of "Christ's representatives on earth"? Or will you leave it up the Judge to tell us what He Judges?
Let me guess, you get to decide who is a true believer and who isn't, right?
Now, now. It's Catholics like you who refused to acknowledge her shear brilliance and her ability to infallibly rewrite the Catechism that drove her from the Church in the first place. If the Church had just been more accommodating and obsequious she might still be Catholic.
Well looks like we found the one who could have thrown the first stone.
;-D
Yes, that IS what I am saying. I am right now, at this moment justified, sanctified and purified, I have been made righteous by the blood of Jesus Christ and I am IN HIM, not having my own righteousness but the righteousness of God IN Christ. If I were to die at any time I would be in Heaven the next moment with God.
The Gnostics knew of their own salvation. Are you professing Gnosticism now? Christianity as a whole condemned Gnosticism as heresy of the first rank.
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.