 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Prodigal Daughter
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 196 |
| First Name: | Deborah/PD | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptized Catholic, received First Communion, left during Confirmation year. ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 1st, 2007 09:38 pm |
|
My dh and I do these podcasts for his blog from time to time. We recently did one on Confession and received several comments. The following was written by a Catholic friend and I wonder if it is true. Has anyone ever heard of this?
When we say doctrinally that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is the normative vehicle through which Catholics receive forgiveness, this is qualified by what the whoop we mean: this language will tend to confuse if not understood in full context.
First, by "normative," we mean normal, usual and advised. This does not mean that sins may be forgiven *only* via the sacrament. Indeed, we also believe that God cleanses us of original sin via baptism (and we would be wise to note that "baptism" itself has both a normative definition and a broader sense), or via direct confession and an act of contrition to God (The "good thief " was neither physically baptized nor assured by any priest or minister of forgiveness but Jesus, the one High Priest, Himself.).
Second, as implied by the above, though an ordained priest is the *normative* administer of this sacrament, in a pinch, *any Catholic * can hear the confession of another and in the name of Jesus (in the authority of Jesus), absolve him. After all, we are a nation of kings and priests.
____________________
"Man should tremble, the world should vibrate, all Heaven should be deeply moved when the Son of God appears on the altar in the hands of the priest."
St. Francis of Assisi
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 1st, 2007 11:14 pm |
|
Your friend seems to be equivocating the different definitions of the word “priest.” The general priesthood of the faithful does not include the powers and functions of the ministerial priesthood.
Furthermore, while God is not bound by the sacraments he instituted through his Church, we humans are. In other words, God can indeed heal or forgive whomever he pleases, even without the sacraments. But we should never presume that he will so please with us. We should always avail ourselves of the divinely instituted means of salvation instead of relying on a substitute. Protestants have rejected the sacraments, and if your friend believes that their approach is just as good and effective as the Catholic sacraments, then what is the use of the Church, the sacraments, or even divine revelation that gave us both? This is indifferentism, not Catholicism.
Thirdly, your friend speaks of sin only generically, evidently not distinguishing between mortal and venial sin. To say, as he does, “This does not mean that sins may be forgiven only via the sacrament,” is normally true for venial sins, but only extraordinarily true (that is, not normally true) for mortal sins. By confounding the one with the other, he ends by affirming that it doesn’t matter how you seek forgiveness for any sin, which effectively denies the necessity of the sacraments. Yet the necessity of the sacraments is a dogma of the faith.
It seems on reading the entire reply your friend has posted that he is basing himself on shallow legalistic definitions of human sin and divine forgiveness. This is what led the Pharisees of later biblical Judaism astray and, in turn, why our Lord criticized them so heavily.
David
|
|
|
Current time is 08:21 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
