Do you have to be Catholic to receive Confession?

[benedictgal]

While it may not be “officially” a sacrament, there is some type of spiritual connection in a non-Catholic seeking forgiveness. Again, we can only theorize it and will have as many opinions on it as there are theologians on what to call it. Remember, all non-Catholic Christian religions are based on the same theological historical God (initially caused by some long-ago human schism which is minor in the big picture) as us (even true for Islam). I do not believe that “favorites” are played in the confessing and forgiveness process over a theoretical list of rules in the spiritual frame.

As usual, you have missed the boat and are still misfiring. Have you forgotten about the schisms and the Protestant split?

In order to receive the sacraments, you must believe what the Church professes. Your diversity diabribe does not work here. You keep missing the point.

 

[mercygate]

I would say the definition of “faithful” is so restricted. “Faithful” to the Church is one way to look at it, the other would be “Faithful” to God.

The Catholic position is that the mind of Christ [the teaching of the Church] and the Body of Christ [the Church] are inseparable. Therefore the definition of “the faithful” as those who accept the teachings of the Church is by no means restricted. Anyone is free to accept the teachings of the Church. The door is open and the lights are on. Come on in!

“Heresy” in this case also comes down to past divisions in the various human schisms over history.

Are you talking about schism or heresy? Pick one.

Yet through all the schisms, the definition of God does not change, it is the same historical God in all the other sects.

I vehemently reject your indication that the Catholic Church is a “sect” – perhaps one among a selection of other “sects” with equivalent claims. Not gonna fly.

Remember that the human schisms happened over human disagreements over rules and not in a belief in the same historical God. What does all this mean? In the end what happens in this case happens between God and the person when the priest gives his forgiveness blessing. What he truly imparts is a topic theologians have not defined yet and there will probably never be uniform agreement over it.

You are saying that a person may confess to a priest (agreed) but that he will not receive the assurance of the sacramental effect if the absolution is not given according to the proper form (agreed).

If that priest is smart, he will help the penitent to come to terms with the full implication of his desire for Catholic confession. Namely, that the Holy Spirit is prompting him , through the desire for this Sacrament, to accept the rest of Christ’s teaching on HIS terms, in HIS Church.

 

[KGH]

I just heard yesterday from a priest friend that it is actually in the new Catechism that you can receive absolution in extremis even if you are not a Catholic – the idea being that such a person, by requesting absolution at the point of death, is implicitly acknowledging the authority of the Church to absolve. Someone with better knowledge than I do can confirm the place in the Catechism where this is stated.

KGH

 

[mercygate]

I just heard yesterday from a priest friend that it is actually in the new Catechism that you can receive absolution in extremis even if you are not a Catholic – the idea being that such a person, by requesting absolution at the point of death, is implicitly acknowledging the authority of the Church to absolve. Someone with better knowledge than I do can confirm the place in the Catechism where this is stated.

KGH

Right: in extremis. The presumption would be that if the person recovers, he’s on track for the trip into the fullness of the faith. You can do things in extrremis that don’t hold under normal circumstances. An unfrocked Priest can hear the confession of a dying person.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

As usual, you have missed the boat and are still misfiring. Have you forgotten about the schisms and the Protestant split?

In order to receive the sacraments, you must believe what the Church professes. Your diversity diabribe does not work here. You keep missing the point.

I have mentioned these in my posts already.

I talked about the schisms being on this human plane over other things than the definition of God. That has not changed on the spiritual plane as it is the same God even after the splits down here.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

The Catholic position is that the mind of Christ [the teaching of the Church] and the Body of Christ [the Church] are inseparable. Therefore the definition of “the faithful” as those who accept the teachings of the Church is by no means restricted. Anyone is free to accept the teachings of the Church. The door is open and the lights are on. Come on in! The Are you talking about schism or heresy? Pick one.
I vehemently reject your indication that the Catholic Church is a “sect” – perhaps one among a selection of other “sects” with equivalent claims. Not gonna fly.You are saying that a person may confess to a priest (agreed) but that he will not receive the assurance of the sacramental effect if the absolution is not given according to the proper form (agreed).

If that priest is smart, he will help the penitent to come to terms with the full implication of his desire for Catholic confession. Namely, that the Holy Spirit is prompting him , through the desire for this Sacrament, to accept the rest of Christ’s teaching on HIS terms, in HIS Church.

“Sects” is used in the global Christian (or even larger if you include Islam). The root is from Rome, but each group is more similar than different when you look closely. “Heresy” and “Schism” are intertwined in this discussion, as historical “schisms” then redefine things on each side of the “schism” as a “heresy”. Remember the “schisms” are on the human plane and not on the spiritual plane which we do not know what it is, but in all the “schisms” the universal definition of God has not changed, which blurs the lines on what is a “heresy” even more.

If the non-Catholic came to the priest, they have certain expectations on how the Catholic Church does it and accept it that way, but even here the priest is only an intermediary in the spiritual act that goes on. It is about forgiveness in the end, not fulfilling a checklist of rules on if forgiveness is given, that is beyond the human plane and priest’s ability.

 

[benedictgal]

“Sects” is used in the global Christian (or even larger if you include Islam). The root is from Rome, but each group is more similar than different when you look closely. “Heresy” and “Schism” are intertwined in this discussion, as historical “schisms” then redefine things on each side of the “schism” as a “heresy”. Remember the “schisms” are on the human plane and not on the spiritual plane which we do not know what it is, but in all the “schisms” the universal definition of God has not changed, which blurs the lines on what is a “heresy” even more.

If the non-Catholic came to the priest, they have certain expectations on how the Catholic Church does it and accept it that way, but even here the priest is only an intermediary in the spiritual act that goes on. It is about forgiveness in the end, not fulfilling a checklist of rules on if forgiveness is given, that is beyond the human plane and priest’s ability.

No matter how you slice it, the Protestant ecclesial communities are in schism. Obviously, “forgiveness is beyond the human plane”, however, it is through the

ministry of the Church that God grants you pardon and peace and

in the person of the priest, absolves you from you rsins, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Remember, when the priest is reciting the prayer of absolution, he says, “I absolve you”. Here he is acting in persona Christi (excuse me if I mispell the Latin, but it is getting late and I’m prepping the dachshunds for the cold front).

According to one of the saints (and my memory escapes me), it is Jesus who is in the confessional administering the sacrament through the priest.

Unfortunately, Protestants do not believe that. Their common argument is “why should I go to a man when I can go to God directly.”

I don’t know if you meant to dismiss the notion of heresy. If that is the case, then that is very sad. Your post almost seems to make all religions sound relative. This is exactly what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger vehemently condemned in his Conclave Mass homily wherein he spoke of the “dictatorship of relativism.” I suggest that you pick up a copy and read it.

 

[ERose]

The presumption is that a person who has been baptized and confirmed in the Church does assent to the teaching of the Church.

A non-Catholic is not in the same position because the presumption is that he is NOT in agreement with the teachings of the Church. If he has no intention of consenting to the articles of the faith, then he is not seeking reconciliation with God, who gives the Church her authority nor with the Church.

Someone who comes to Confession seeking absolution but rejects baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the teaching on contracetpion or papal authority is effectively making a bad confession.

Mercygate, I believe you are not understanding my point on Knowledge. No where does the church teach that you must be in full agreement with its teachings to be absolved of your sins in confession. No where. So lets get off of this horse for it is going no where.

 

[benedictgal]

Mercygate, I believe you are not understanding my point on Knowledge. No where does the church teach that you must be in full agreement with its teachings to be absolved of your sins in confession. No where. So lets get off of this horse for it is going no where.

It probably doesn’t show up because it was never assumed that a non-Catholic would approach the sacraments in the first place. However, it is generally assumed that the one seeking the sacraments is Catholic.

ERose, the point of the whole thing is that the Sacraments are a sacred treasure of the Catholic Church. What part of that do you not understand?

No one is trying to be condescending towards the Protestants; however, in order to receive the Sacraments, you need to believe that Christ established them and that he entrusted them to His Church, which happens to be founded on the Rock of St. Peter. Protestant ecclesial communities do not have the fullness of Truth. The Church does. I would direct you to read the document recently issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope Benedict XVI. Perhaps this would shed some light:

adoremus.org/CDF_DoctrineQuestions.html

Although it does not cite the sacraments, this document gives you a pretty good idea regarding the position the Church has with these Protestant ecclesial communities. You might also check the other documents that the CDF quotes.

 

[ERose]

It probably doesn’t show up because it was never assumed that a non-Catholic would approach the sacraments in the first place. However, it is generally assumed that the one seeking the sacraments is Catholic.

You are to a certain point correct on this one. Particulary considering the concept of Christians being separated from each other being a relatively new concept in Church history. Even during the Arian heresy, the Arians where still considered part of the church and the heresy was handled internally.

ERose, the point of the whole thing is that the Sacraments are a sacred treasure of the Catholic Church. What part of that do you not understand?

They are the sacred treasure of the Body of Christ. If you go down the line of your thought then only Catholics have access to legitimate Sacraments where theologically that is not true. Baptism and Matrimony are the perfect examples of this point. Baptism outside the church is considered valied if the proper form & matter are present. Same with Matrimony.

No one is trying to be condescending towards the Protestants; however, in order to receive the Sacraments, you need to believe that Christ established them and that he entrusted them to His Church, which happens to be founded on the Rock of St. Peter. Protestant ecclesial communities do not have the fullness of Truth. The Church does. I would direct you to read the document recently issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope Benedict XVI. Perhaps this would shed some light:

adoremus.org/CDF_DoctrineQuestions.html

This is not true either for the Sacraments of the Eastern Churches are considered valied as well as many of the Sacraments in the Protestant denominations as well even though they do not believe in Papal authority. This what the Church TEACHES. I’m not making this up. This isn’t my opinion. This is the stance of the Church.

 

[benedictgal]

You are to a certain point correct on this one. Particulary considering the concept of Christians being separated from each other being a relatively new concept in Church history. Even during the Arian heresy, the Arians where still considered part of the church and the heresy was handled internally.

They are the sacred treasure of the Body of Christ. If you go down the line of your thought then only Catholics have access to legitimate Sacraments where theologically that is not true. Baptism and Matrimony are the perfect examples of this point. Baptism outside the church is considered valied if the proper form & matter are present. Same with Matrimony.

This is not true either for the Sacraments of the Eastern Churches are considered valied as well as many of the Sacraments in the Protestant denominations as well even though they do not believe in Papal authority. This what the Church TEACHES. I’m not making this up. This isn’t my opinion. This is the stance of the Church.

You still do not uderstand the point of Baptism. We become Catholic only by virtue of Baptism, as administered by the Church. With all due respect, your comments about Bapitsm need to be revisited.

Protestant Baptism, even if it does use the Trinitarian form, does not make one a Catholic, as we have the Sacraments of Initiation to complete. Protestant Bapitism doesn’t entitle Protestants to receive the Sacraments (with the exception of matrimony when the Protestant party marries a Catholic according to the norms established by the Catholic Church) because the Protestants do not believe that the Sacraments were instituted by Christ himself.

Even if a Protestant marries a Catholic according to the rites and norms of our Church, that still does not entitle the Protestant to receive the rest of our sacraments. The Protestant receives the Sacrament of Matrimony by virture of the Catholic party (in a nuptial ritual celebrated under the norms of our Church). Now, the Church does recognize the validity of mariages contracted by two Protestants in their own ecclesial community; however, that recognition doesn’t mean that the Protestants are automatically entitled to receive our Sacraments. Therefore, your argument doesn’t seem to hold much water.

The only way that a Protestant can receive the full compliment of sacraments is by entering into full commuion with the Catholic Church. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[Nordar]

Whenever someone is Baptised either in the Catholic Church or another denomination that person is being adopted into the Spiritual Body of Christ. That is to the best of my knowledge the teaching of the Church.

While this may be true, since the Catholic Church is the one true Church, being baptised in another denomination one would therefore not recieve Instructions in the Catholic Faith. Recieving Instructions in the Catholic faith is essential to understanding the full meaning of ALL the sacraments.
I believe if you walk into any Catholic church today and ask them their belief in something you will probably get all kind of answers that are not the true teachings of the church.
This also may be true it does not however negate the true teachings of The Church.

We see it all the time here in this forum were Catholics do not know or disregard the teachings of the church.

Again true, no one would debate this with you, again however that in no way negates the Teaching of the Church. Because there are cafeteria Catholics out there does not mean that The Sacraments can be watered down.

 

[Nordar]

That is part of the humble and contrite heart. A humble and contrite heart for you guys who do not know is in the Biblical It is also an understanding that I cannot fix this evil without God’s help or the Churches help. That is a humble and contrite heart.

I am well aware of the fact that a humble and contrite heart is in The Bible,

The Church is the body of Christ! So my question to you is, how does a non Catholic who does not believe that the Catholic Church is the body of Christ ( and only The Catholic Church) fully expect to recieve the Sacrament of Reconciliation? And why would you? It is so very clear in your posts that you do not understand Catholic teaching or doctrine so I am truly confused as to why you would even want absolution from a Priest.

 

[Nordar]

I would say the definition of “faithful” is so restricted. “Faithful” to the Church is one way to look at it, the other would be “Faithful” to God. “Heresy” in this case also comes down to past divisions in the various human schisms over history. Yet through all the schisms, the definition of God does not change, it is the same historical God in all the other sects. Remember that the human schisms happened over human disagreements over rules and not in a belief in the same historical God.

What does all this mean? In the end what happens in this case happens between God and the person when the priest gives his forgiveness blessing. What he truly imparts is a topic theologians have not defined yet and there will probably never be uniform agreement over it.

I;m sorry but from reading things that you post I have to ask are you Catholic?

 

[benedictgal]

Some reference has been made regarding the Greek Orthodox Church, which is not in full communion with Rome. From my very limited understanding, I surmise that under certain circumstances, inter-communion between the two churches is allowed (i.e. If I were to visit Greece or Turkey and could not find a “Roman” Catholic Church, then I could fulfill my obligation by attending the Greek Orthodox one). Furthermore, the Church does recognize that Apostolic Succession exists in the Greek Orthodox Church, after all, “Peter” visited “Andrew” last November. Each attended the other’s liturgies; but, they did not concelebrate. In fact, a delegation from each Church attends each other’s patriarchal feasts (i.e. they visit Rome for the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul and we visit Constantinople (Istanbul) for the Feast of St. Andrew).

The main issue is that the Greeks do not recognize Peter’s supreme authority over the Church. They regard their Patriarch as “first among equals”. That is not so with our Church.

Nonetheless, we can’t lump their situation with the Protestants. That’s a horse of an entirely different color and breed.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I;m sorry but from reading things that you post I have to ask are you Catholic?

I am Catholic, always have been always will be. I guess it appears I take a broader view than most here.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

No matter how you slice it, the Protestant ecclesial communities are in schism. Obviously, “forgiveness is beyond the human plane”, however, it is through the

in the person of the priest, absolves you from you rsins, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Remember, when the priest is reciting the prayer of absolution, he says, “I absolve you”. Here he is acting in persona Christi (excuse me if I mispell the Latin, but it is getting late and I’m prepping the dachshunds for the cold front).

According to one of the saints (and my memory escapes me), it is Jesus who is in the confessional administering the sacrament through the priest.

Unfortunately, Protestants do not believe that. Their common argument is “why should I go to a man when I can go to God directly.”

I don’t know if you meant to dismiss the notion of heresy. If that is the case, then that is very sad. Your post almost seems to make all religions sound relative. This is exactly what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger vehemently condemned in his Conclave Mass homily wherein he spoke of the “dictatorship of relativism.” I suggest that you pick up a copy and read it.

Let me try to explain my “schism” definition again. The schisms are here on earth, but not on the spiritual plane. From all the schisms over the years (and sub-schisms from those), the theological definition of God has not changed as many times as schisms occurred because that is what is agreed upon.

The OP asked about an instance on when a non-Catholic would choose to go to Catholic confession, that means something else is drawing them to go a priest as an intermediary, when as you say they usually try to go the direct route. In the end it is an instance by instance situation when it would happen in real life. Each non-Catholic would have their own reasons to do this. Yet I would think that forgiveness would still happen, it may not fit the “official” definition, but something will happen as the priest gives his blessing, what that causes the non-Catholic to do is an individual situation to each non-Catholic.

“Heresy” has always created more divisions than healing them. All posters on this board are more alike than not if you look at the whole person and away from the anonymity of the internet. If you look at humanity as a whole “liberal vs conservative”, “orthodox vs heterodox” seems very minor in the big picture of life and can come across as internal distortions of humanity.

“Relativism” is defined as:
a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing (From M-W.com)

This is everything in life, as my previous examples (5th Luminous Mystery Discussion, actual mechanism of confession), we are limited by our human minds and conditions of knowing all. The Church (actually all institutions, religious or not) all have this weakness which due to our humanity cannot be totally overcome.

It is good to be aware of our weaknesses, both as part of humanity as a whole and each of us personally. Yet our weaknesses can be turned into strengths if we are aware of them (e.g. in job interviews). I just saw today that a Cardinal from Quebec is putting his own weaknesses into the public eye, a very noble stance.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Because there are cafeteria Catholics out there does not mean that The Sacraments can be watered down.

From the OP’s question, I do not think anything would be “watered down”. Some grace would be imparted, it would not meet the “official” definition of Confession, and as of now it is undefined theologically what actually you call what passes through a priest to a non-Catholic during Confession.

 

[ERose]

I am well aware of the fact that a humble and contrite heart is in The Bible,

The Church is the body of Christ! So my question to you is, how does a non Catholic who does not believe that the Catholic Church is the body of Christ ( and only The Catholic Church) fully expect to recieve the Sacrament of Reconciliation? And why would you? It is so very clear in your posts that you do not understand Catholic teaching or doctrine so I am truly confused as to why you would even want absolution from a Priest.

To be honest with you I have SAID NOTHING in any of my posts that contradicts the teaching of the Church. From your response it is very easy to see that you know very little about the teachings of the Church yourself.

All I have asked for in these posts is evidence from a teaching standpoint that only Roman Catholic’s have access to the rite of reconcilation. Or if there is no true evidence then a good sound theological reason for the exclusion of non-Catholics from this rite. That is all that I have asked for from my posts. I at this point have not received either.

So at this point in time I will chalk this up as being unclear.

 

[Daprato]

While it may not be “officially” a sacrament, there is some type of spiritual connection in a non-Catholic seeking forgiveness. Again, we can only theorize it and will have as many opinions on it as there are theologians on what to call it. Remember, all non-Catholic Christian religions are based on the same theological historical God (initially caused by some long-ago human schism which is minor in the big picture) as us (even true for Islam). I do not believe that “favorites” are played in the confessing and forgiveness process over a theoretical list of rules in the spiritual frame.

And there would be “some type of spiritual connection” if I discussed my sins with a Protestant minister – or any Christian for that matter.

Thankfully it’s not up to us or theologian to “theorize” about the efficacy of the Sacraments as the Church has already clearly defined them.

That “theoretical list of rules” you speak of is the Church’s dogmatic deposit of faith. If you don’t believe it exists, you have some real problems as a Catholic Christian.