Posted on 04/25/2014 12:40:56 PM PDT by ebb tide
Prove it; because I won't believe you until you do so. Just like murron and yourself on her novel tele-fessions.
Obviously you didn’t. I’m still waiting for your links to this vast wealth of information you seem to have stored somewhere in your brain. Where does any of your sources say that a priest can break the seal of the confessional based on where or when he heard the sins being confessed? You are deliberately dodging the question and you, as well as others on this thread, keep getting hung up on giving absolution. A priest does not have to give absolution to make it a valid confession.
How many time have you confessed your sins and received absolution over the telephone?
I’m willing to hear your confession now; just PM me with you phone number. You could then hear my confession.
I betcha he wouldn’t. He may at a later time address the subject of whether or not he hates Muslims, but he could not make reference to it in the context of the phone call IF she confessed one or more sins to the Holy Father.
Notice the name of the writer, then scroll down to step 17 http://www.instructables.com/id/Building-a-One-sheet-boat/
Mea culpa et Dominus tecum.
The above statement is patently false and it is heresy. You sound like a Lutheran.
So far, she hasn't.
Nor, have you.
An intercontinental phone conversation is not a Sacrament, so the seal of confession is not relevant here. Nothing to stop him clarifying important points and doctrines without giving away intimate details about the woman he called. The Pope is the head of the entire Church and for him to allow private interactions such as this one to result in world-wide confusion regarding Church teaching is quite destructive. Of course the advice the woman claims to have received from him is in line with the marvelous Kasper theology which the Pope has endorsed so maybe he was already putting it into action.
How is this any different than Jesus touching the “unclean” woman, or the prostitute?
Putting mans religious laws above Gods?
“I’ve already unplugged all TV’s”
You have that many?
Don’t worry. Things will go along just fine without you.
We’ve already discussed this in most of this thread. The only thing that has been referenced here is if absolution can be given over the phone, and it has been ascertained that it cannot. But absolution is withheld many times for a variety of reasons, but it is still a confession. Whether or not you are saying it is a sacrament or not does not alleviate the priest’s obligation to keep the seal of the confessional in place. I have found nothing that says otherwise.
For someone who claims to know so much, you know so little. A man goes to confession and confesses that he stole $500 from someone. The priest then withholds absolution on the contingency that he will grant absolution only when this person makes restitution to the victim. According to you, the priest would then have the right to tell anyone what this man told him because he did not grant absolution. Right?
What does your stupid example have to do with “telephone confessions”?
Like the guy who lived on John XXIII Road and was killed by a twisted Crucifix in honor of JPII?
What if the same thief publicly lied and said his confessor not only told him it was OK to steal, but he also told him he could continue to commit adultery and still receive Holy Communion?
Do you think the priest is bound to remain silent and let such lies stand for public record as the truth?
It has everything to do with the discussion as a whole. I am not going to keep going over all that has been discussed. Go back and read all the prior posts and you will see what it has to do with it.
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.