Catholic friends have no need for confession

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Two definitions for you.

intellect:
1 a : the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will : the capacity for knowledge b : the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed
2 : a person with great intellectual powers

dogma:
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

First, seeing that it specifically states that assent of faith is not required, then it is not required. One my disagree with something and still be obeident.

Second, there is no such thing as undefined dogma, by looking at the definition of dogma you can see that the term undefined dogma is an oxymoron. It can not be dogma unless it is defined.

But on the off chance, can you show some Church document that talks about undefined dogmas?

 

[JimG]

Even if you convince them to go to confession, she still must stop living with her boyfriend. What good is confession without a purpose of amendment?

 

[mercygate]

JimG:

Even if you convince them to go to confession, she still must stop living with her boyfriend. What good is confession without a purpose of amendment?

Jim, I would speculate that she knows that and that it is the primary reason that she avoids Confession. People know what is right, what the Church must uphold in these moral issues. Now, if she would become honest and step down from her position as an EMHC and stop coming forward to receive the Eucharist, that would be a step in the right direction.

 

[YinYangMom]

JimG:

Even if you convince them to go to confession, she still must stop living with her boyfriend. What good is confession without a purpose of amendment?

On a side note…
I thought the pastor appointed Eucharistic Ministers (if I recall correctly, isn’t that the wrong term to use for them by the way?)…
Why would a priest allow this person to be one if she is living in mortal sin???

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ByzCath,

Second, there is no such thing as undefined dogma, by looking at the definition of dogma you can see that the term undefined dogma is an oxymoron. It can not be dogma unless it is defined.

That quote, “there are such things as undefined dogmas that we must adhere to” is from YOU. It is not a term I used, but one that you used in this post here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=218585&postcount=60

I used the term material dogmas versus formal dogmas. This is the terminology used by Dr. Ludwig Ott in his introduction to Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

You must adhere intellectually and willfully to the doctrines (i.e., material dogmas) proposed by the Roman Pontiff.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

O brother

My source of canon 599 was here: ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/ADTUCANS.HTM

Well your source was bad which raises a whole lot of other questions.

If your sources are bad then what else is in error.

If you look at your source you will see that the Latin Canon 752 and the Eastern Canon 599 have the exactly the same wording. This is incorrect.

But that is enough. We are going to disagree on this and never find a common ground. I suggest that we let this drop.

I want to apologize for highjacking this thread.

I have to agree 100% with what JimG and mercygate have said.

She must become honest with herself and admit to her sins and plan on reparing this. Until such a time that she can see this, she is in error.

I would question the priest that allows her to serve as an EMHC while living in open grave sin.

 

[Sir_Knight]

jrabs:

… I am a good person. …

“The righteous man sins seven times a day!” [Prov 24:16] For a righteous man falls seven times in one day, how many times do those of us who are less righteous fall? And how much more deeply do we fall? Thus the need for frequent confession.

jrabs:

…To further complicate things, one of them is proud of being a Eucharistic Minister, but lives in mortal sin with her boyfriend. …

Someone in a state of mortal sin should not be handling the body of Christ. This needs to be communicated to the Pastor and if he takes no action, it should be reported to the Bishop.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I don’t think we’ve hijacked the thread, as the discussion is related to obedience and concurrence with the laws and teachings of the Roman Pontiff.

Assent of faith = complete and absolute concurrence of intellect and will, required of all formal dogmas (defined by the solemn magisterium). Any questioning or doubt is a sin.

Religious concurrence or adherence = required of all doctrines (ie. material dogmas) proposed for belief by the Roman Pontiff and by the Bishops in communion with him. Religious concurrence of intellect and will is required. Internal assent may be withheld, while questioning and proposing alternative hypothesis is allowed. Disagreement or dissent is not allowed.

One cannot be a good Catholic citizen and disobey law, which requires the above.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Well your source was bad which raises a whole lot of other questions.

You’ll have to take that up with EWTN. You’ve not really proven that their translation is bad.

The Vatican’s English translation of Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem states:

Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Canon 599 – While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html

What’s different?

 

[jrabs]

ByzCath:

Well your source was bad which raises a whole lot of other questions.

If your sources are bad then what else is in error.

If you look at your source you will see that the Latin Canon 752 and the Eastern Canon 599 have the exactly the same wording. This is incorrect.

But that is enough. We are going to disagree on this and never find a common ground. I suggest that we let this drop.

I want to apologize for highjacking this thread.

Thanks for your help. You did not highjack and all is good.
I will not be quoting canon law to them at any point soon.

Unfortunately, I see the grave sin but the person committing such does not. Therefore I feel as if I have this pole in my eye while trying to take out the toothpick in her eye. For I am quite the sinner also!

 

[rjmporter]

jrabs:

The Church has the problem because it is too rigid since no other religion requires confession.

Thanks for the wonderful advice. I will think about this and pray much over it.
God bless you all for your time in offering advice.

Sounds like my 12 y.o. – “But Dad, Jimmy’s parents don’t make him do that.”
I mean c’mon.

James (5:16) commands it, the successors of the Apostles hold us bound to it. When you bind yourself to the chruch you are agreeing to be held bound by the teachings of the chruch.

 

[jrabs]

rjmporter:

Sounds like my 12 y.o. – “But Dad, Jimmy’s parents don’t make him do that.”
I mean c’mon.

Exactly! Of course when I start to respond to my frineds,“because Jesus told us to confess our sins.” then I just set myself up for them to say, “wow - nice typical Mommy answer - just because.”

That’s why I need help. I cannot fall back on my mommy-ism’s here.

 

[Annunciata]

jrabs:

Exactly! Of course when I start to respond to my frineds,“because Jesus told us to confess our sins.” then I just set myself up for them to say, “wow - nice typical Mommy answer - just because.”

That’s why I need help. I cannot fall back on my mommy-ism’s here.

Jrabs,

The next time these friends come to you with their questions about prayer, etc., give them some spiritual reading…especially where the issue on chastity is mentioned, but not exclusively…(I can’t think of one just now) A friend of mine did this exact thing when she was asked for spiritual advice …The person in question was an EHME too…a few months later she stepped down with some lame excuse. Anyway, it worked… :twocents: Annunciata

 

[puzzleannie]

jrabs:

Problem is, my friends believe they are in the Church since they are going to Sunday mass. Heck, as I stated, one of them is very proud about serving as Eucharistic minister . Thus they are not sick. They are just following the norms of society. The Church has the problem because it is too rigid since no other religion requires confession…

Your friends say the Church has a problem being too rigid, condemning certain actions as sinful for the last 2000 years. Your friend engages in this activity, suffers the consequences, refuses to partake in the remedy prescribed by the Church and its founder, Jesus for their suffering, yet continues to condemn the Church for repeating the obvious truth. Sin causes suffering. the remedy for sin and suffering is the saving act of Jesus Christ, the way to imbibe the remedy is through the sacraments, specifically confession and holy communion. Beyond stating the obvious, you have done all you can. You might in all sorrow point out that to partake of the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is a sacrilege and grave offense against Jesus, and to refuse his consolation in the sacrament of confession is another. This will of course end your friendship, so it is up to you how you go about this conversation, bearing in mind that they did, after all, ask your advice.