Posted on 11/15/2014 1:56:37 PM PST by NYer
If the Commie “confessed” in a conversation, the priest was not bound by the Seal of Confession.
If the confession occurred during the Sacrament of Penance, then the priest violated the seal.
Over the years, the absoluteness of the seal has been made more and more explicit.
It is said that when the priest emerged from hearing St. Thomas Aquinas’s last confession, he said it was the confession of a five-year-old child. I.e., St. Thomas is noted for his chastity.
In modern times, a priest would not say even that much. He would not speak even of having heard a confession.
Which reminds me:
Ted Kennedy’s receiving a Catholic funeral was defended on the grounds that there was a priest oozing around the compound in the days before he died. I.e., according to canonists, the presence even of such a Mafia priest constitutes some sign of repentance.
If I had been his confessor, I would have made a public repudiation of his public sins—support for abortion and other social evils—a condition of absolution.
Whether there should have been the canonization that Cardinal O’Malley allowed—and clearly reveled in—is a whole ‘nother issue.
I don't personally know any practicing Catholics who think that way. Think how embarrassing it would be to have to tell that to a Priest. It's an incentive to not to do it in the first place, but the primary reason to not sin should be love of God. I don't think a confession is valid if you don't have right intention and true contrition.
Not nearly so much as someone smiling over "once saved always saved" after snorting a few lines of coke before leaving the whore house.
“I don’t understand the difference of a priest giving absolution for sins and Yeshua dying on the Cross for them.”
I do. Jesus died to forgive our sins. That forgiveness has to be applied to us. That’s what Baptism and Confession are for. The grace of Christ in Baptism washes away sins (Acts 22:16). The grace of Christ in Confession absolves sins (John 20:19-23; 2 Cor 2:10 in pre-1960s Bibles Catholic or Protestant).
“Either Yeshua died for our sins or He didn’t and therefore the need for a priest to do that?”
To apply what Christ won to each man who comes forward seeking it. Do you believe that a man must accept Christ to have his sins washed away? Most Protestants would readily agree with that idea. But why would that be necessary if your earlier (apparent) understanding is “Either Yeshua died for our sins or He didn’t”? Jesus died for our sins, but that doesn’t mean every human being is now going to go to Heaven no matter what - no natter whether they believe in Jesus or not, whether or not they’ve turned their life over to Him, etc.
It’s not hard to understand.
One has to assume then that the priest has received a supernatural power to know whether the confessor is telling the truth...
I don't know why you'd find it incredible...There's not a single word/example about such a practice taking place in the scriptures...That would lead one to believe that the verse doesn't quite mean what you guys want it to mean...Especially since this breathing the Holy Spirit was something given to all the disciples, not just the apostles...
Metanoia isn’t feeling sorry.
It is a change of one’s thinking.
When we week fellowship with God, it occurs by facing God, recognizing what Jesus Christ performed on the Cross, stating our missing His Plan to Him, through faith in His payment for those sins.
God is free to now forgive those sins placing us immediately back into a personal fellowship with Him, because the payment has already been performed by Christ on the Cross for all mankind, past, present, and future.
Repentance does NOT mean we will never sin again. God can see the future for all eternity future and knows before we sin what will occur. He still forgives us upon our turning back to Him away from anything other than His Plan, while we are in faith of what Christ provided on the Cross.
Quite the opposite in fact. The Catholic Church is insuring that the proper matter and form are being used. Think of it this way: A surgeon must use specific tools in the proper manner for a surgery to be successful. While it might be successful to "MacGyver" it, why take the chance.
My longest confession was when I re-entered the Catholic Church. Father Joe and I both sat in one of the pews outside the confessional since they were actually more comfortable than the confessional chairs and we both knew this was going to take a while. Took about 30 minutes and the man had sweat on his brow when we finished, and I was walking 2 foot off the ground.
Seriously? If you are not making a sincere confession than it is not valid. Why on earth would someone go to make a confession and then lie during it?
Three comments:
I also agree that repentance does NOT mean we will never sin again. I means we *intend* never to sin again. We also promise to avoid the near occasions of sin, i.e. the persons, places, things, or situations that readily lead us into sin.
So what you wrote was well said.
Okay. Disciples. That wasn’t my point.
You gratuitously assert that my interpretation of the verse is mistaken.
The principle is: What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.
“O wonderful, wonderful, and most wonderful wonderful! And yet again wonderful, and after that, out of all hooping.” (Shakespeare, As You Like It.)
Where in the Scriptures does it say that Jesus and the apostles and disciples did nothing and said nothing that is not reported in the Scriptures?
And do you feel the same way about marriage? Baptism?
You make a good point regarding “how would the priest know who the person was”, but since Vatican II penitents can request absolution face-to-face or not. So, a priest can know who the penitent was.
Up to this point, I hadn’t thought of this specific example and only adds to my beliefs that changing to face-to-face confessions was a mistake.
I think it was more one of those damned "spirit" of V2 things. Confessions could always be done face-to-face, e.g. at a hospital, a jail cell, a convalescent home, in a war zone, The "spirit" of Vat 2 suggested that sin be de-emphasized and replaced with a more affirming/therapeutic approach, and anything that suggested especial seriousness or gravity or the solemnity of God's justice (e.g. semi-darkened confessionals as durable architectural features of a church) eliminated.
In most parishes' experience, the practice of Confession has dropped precipitously.
I don't know of this was ever mandated by actual Conciliar document.
I don’t know either. It may very well be something that evolved, but it is definitely something that became common after Vatican II.
I’ll look into it though.....
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.