Do I Need to Go to Confession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Donald_Ramsey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Donald_Ramsey

Guest
I received some sedevacantist literature and found it very compelling and made a $50 financial donation to the group. This was a few days ago. I have since changed my mind about them. Do I need to go to confession (I am serious)?
Thank you
 
I know that I would, without question. An arguably schismatic act is not a minor matter. I would also think that the fact that you are concerned about it is the sign of a well-formed conscience.
 
Donald Ramsey:
I received some sedevacantist literature and found it very compelling and made a $50 financial donation to the group. This was a few days ago. I have since changed my mind about them. Do I need to go to confession (I am serious)?
Thank you
Click to expand...
if you didn’t know any better there may be no sin… if it were me, be safe and go… speak with the priest and he will help you decern as to the sin and degree if any… and grant you absolution if needed… 👍
 
space ghost:
if you didn’t know any better there may be no sin… if it were me, be safe and go… speak with the priest and he will help you discern as to the sin and degree if any… and grant you absolution if needed… 👍
Click to expand...
I agree. Probably no great fault on your part unless you knew what you were doing.
 
I would think of this: The $50 you gave has actively furthered the work of a schismatic group to splinter the Catholic Church. It is a serious matter. As you did not realize or intend this at the time, you were not culpable, but the act was still sinful. Now that you have realized the sinfulness of such an act, shouldn’t you confess it?
 
Donald Ramsey:
I received some sedevacantist literature and found it very compelling and made a $50 financial donation to the group. This was a few days ago. I have since changed my mind about them. Do I need to go to confession (I am serious)?
Thank you
Click to expand...
Is there time to stop payment on the check? It will cost about $30, but that’s less than the $50 you sent, and you don’t support the people in error. Give it a try.

Dr. Colossus, although Donald did something that was objectively wrong, if he did not do it with full knowledge and consent, he has not committed a sin. At the time, he thought he was doing a good thing - he lacked full knowledge, sufficient reflection, whatever you want to call it, so, on a technicality, he does not have to confess it. That said, in his place, I would confess it anyway, out of love and sorrow, especially if I couldn’t get the check back.

Hey Donald, don’t you just love it when people talk about you as if you weren’t there? Sorry about that!

Betsy
 
Dr. Colossus, although Donald did something that was objectively wrong, if he did not do it with full knowledge and consent, he has not committed a sin. At the time, he thought he was doing a good thing - he lacked full knowledge, sufficient reflection, whatever you want to call it, so, on a technicality, he does not have to confess it. That said, in his place, I would confess it anyway, out of love and sorrow, especially if I couldn’t get the check back.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t clear. I apologize. I said the act was sinful. I should have specified that I was referring objectively to the act of assisting schism. Secondly, just because a person doesn’t know it’s a sin doesn’t make it ok. As I said, he was not culpable (i.e. not at fault and therefore no need for confession). My point was that upon realizing that an act was sinful (though not guilty of the sin), if we are truly sorry for having commited it, we should still go to confession.
 
The reason I wrote them the check is that there seems to be a lot of strange things going on in the church theologically. For example, The bishops not long ago in the USA issued a document saying that trying to convert Jewish people to Christianity is no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic church. To my ears, that is apostasy. But the bishops CITED Pope John Paul II as the basis for their statement, namely his statement (found also in the New catechism) that the Old Covenant (Law of Moses) has never been revoked. That doesn’t “sit right” with me, because it contradicts 2000 years of Christian teaching of the Catholic church. The sedevacantists said that it was flat-out heresy and that since a pope cannot teach heresy, JPII must not be a true pope. Their argument made sense to me, and I sent them the check. Then I had second thoughts. I am still bothered by Pope John Paul II’s statement that the Old Covenant has never been revoked, but since he didn’t state it “ex cathedra”, then it follows that the Pope has not bound a heresy on the church from the Chair of Peter, a thing which would be impossible, so now I am sorry that I sent them the check. I jumped to the wrong conclusions I guess. Does this make sense?
 
Donald Ramsey:
The reason I wrote them the check is that there seems to be a lot of strange things going on in the church theologically. For example, The bishops not long ago in the USA issued a document saying that trying to convert Jewish people to Christianity is no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic church. To my ears, that is apostasy. But the bishops CITED Pope John Paul II as the basis for their statement, namely his statement (found also in the New catechism) that the Old Covenant (Law of Moses) has never been revoked. That doesn’t “sit right” with me, because it contradicts 2000 years of Christian teaching of the Catholic church. The sedevacantists said that it was flat-out heresy and that since a pope cannot teach heresy, JPII must not be a true pope. Their argument made sense to me, and I sent them the check. Then I had second thoughts. I am still bothered by Pope John Paul II’s statement that the Old Covenant has never been revoked, but since he didn’t state it “ex cathedra”, then it follows that the Pope has not bound a heresy on the church from the Chair of Peter, a thing which would be impossible, so now I am sorry that I sent them the check. I jumped to the wrong conclusions I guess. Does this make sense?
Click to expand...
I personally would confess it, since you are sorry you sent the check. Regarding their claims, I would do a little more research into this. The Holy Father has never, to my knowledge, said anything (*ex cathedra *or not) heretical, but has done a lot which has been misunderstood or misinterpreted. The statement “the Old Covenant (Law of Moses) has never been revoked” is true, provided one understands that its context is that it has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ (not that we are still bound by it). Christ stated that he “did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it”.
 
When you are able, try to donate the same amount or double to something worthwhile as a goodwill penance…ie

Ewtn
Catholic Charities
Relevant Radio
St Vincent De Paul Society
Your Parish

🙂
 
Well, I went to confession today and I feel much better.
Thanks for your advice, everyone!
OH, and to the person who suggested donating to good Catholic organizations, you neglected to mention donating to
Catholic Answers!! (which I already do when I can). Let’s not forget Catholic Answers!
God bless,
Donald
 
Donald Ramsey:
The reason I wrote them the check is that there seems to be a lot of strange things going on in the church theologically. For example, The bishops not long ago in the USA issued a document saying that trying to convert Jewish people to Christianity is no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic church. To my ears, that is apostasy. But the bishops CITED Pope John Paul II as the basis for their statement, namely his statement (found also in the New catechism) that the Old Covenant (Law of Moses) has never been revoked. That doesn’t “sit right” with me, because it contradicts 2000 years of Christian teaching of the Catholic church. The sedevacantists said that it was flat-out heresy and that since a pope cannot teach heresy, JPII must not be a true pope. Their argument made sense to me, and I sent them the check. Then I had second thoughts. I am still bothered by Pope John Paul II’s statement that the Old Covenant has never been revoked, but since he didn’t state it “ex cathedra”, then it follows that the Pope has not bound a heresy on the church from the Chair of Peter, a thing which would be impossible, so now I am sorry that I sent them the check. I jumped to the wrong conclusions I guess. Does this make sense?
Click to expand...
My advice would be to be VERY careful what sources you use and take nothing traditionalist state at face value. They often pervert an event to make things appear as something more and worse than they are. The epidsode you cite above is a distortion of what actually happened. The statement/document in question came out of a sub-committee of the USCCB and has absolutely no authority whatsoever (Cardinal William Keeler, the U.S. Bishops’ Moderator for Catholic-Jewish relations has stated such explicitely). While the document references statements by JPII in it, the pope in NO way put his seal of approval (or even a comment) on this non-authoritative ‘reflection’ by a USCCB sub-committe. For a full run down of the episode see this link…
http://www.envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/083002.htm
…Please, please, please be very catious in taking traditionalist arguments at face value. Always tried to make sure that you know what ‘really’ happened when they raise something of this nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top