D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Trent is treating the nature of the sacrament relative to theories of the Reformation…in other words, it’s saying the sacrament is a remedy for post-baptismal sin that may be received over the course of a lifetime. Attempting to invoke that pronouncement in this situation is inappropriate; it cannot sustain the point you wish to makeI never said it could be received in an unlimited fashion. I said it can be received if he has fallen into sin, which he said he did, no matter how recently his previous confession was. This indeed is a dogma of the faith, defined by the Council of Trent
You think? I explained our process. What is the process in your diocese for granting confession faculties? Since you dispute my competence, that is the very minimum question I ask by which you can demonstrate to me the depth and breadth that your knowledge rests on for administering the sacrament, especially the origin of your knowledge on prudential judgments about the sacrament’s celebration and deferring absolutionI think it’s the same here in the US, it just depends on what they learn.
No, in fact the way you have formulated the point is not correct…it is flawed in a way I would not expect even when examining a student not yet ordained to diaconateIf someone is in mortal sin, he cannot be reproached for wanting confession (provided, of course, that he’s truly sorry etc.). If a person is in mortal sin, he cannot receive the sacrament of penance quick enough. You’re right in saying that for someone who is doubt as to whether he committed a sin should simply wait until his next scheduled confession (and I agree too that more than once a week would be excessive), but this does not apply to someone who knows he’s in mortal sin. As I said, in such a case, he ought to receive the sacrament as soon as he can
One can approach confession too frequently, even if serious sin is involved. A priest is to exercise prudence and discretion when administering reconciliation beyond the bell curve of frequency…the further outside the curve, the greater his attentiveness to the matter and his reticence to accede. A priest thoroughly knowledgeable regarding reconciliation would know, actually not from Alphonsus and moral theology but from mystical theology, the circumstances for extreme frequency…we’re not talking about such instance in this threadAgain, there can be no question of too much frequency as long as the sins confessed are truly mortal. In such a case, the penitent is doing what is right. You’re right, it’s confessor’s duty to determine whether absolution should be given, but he may not refuse to a penitent who has made a sincere confession of mortal sin (which all acts of impurity are) with true sorrow either
The precise point I have made is: the sacrament in the circumstance is not to be celebrated with the frequency being envisioned by some, including yourself. I hardly see the value of my repeating the same point. The judgment I made stands
A confessor assuredly can – for several reasons independent of each other – defer absolution to a penitent even when there is serious sin and in the presence of true sorrow. That is so fundamental, one being examined before ordination should know that and be able to enumerate different permutations in response to that scenario
I find your first statement not in keeping with either the tone or the language you have employedI’m not suggesting you’re incompetent; all I’m saying is that if you read the OP’s post, he said he fell into impurity, which is unquestionably mortal. If he really has committed a mortal sin, then absolutely he should go to confession as soon as possible. He should not wait because he thinks it’s “too frequent”. Again, it’s one thing if there’s a doubt, it’s another thing if there’s certainty that the sin was mortal
I did read the post
I object to your statement that the issue is “unquestionable.” That statement cannot be remotely sustained. You seem not to make the distinction between objective matter and acquisition of subjective moral guilt…which must be done and the determination is proper to the confessor in place…not you
I have also interacted with this poster before and from those interactions, I have some familiarity with both the issues, the parents, their concerns, as well as the priest
The science of moral theology has hardly stood still since the era of Alphonsus. It is, happily, progressed since his day. He is a saint and doctor of the Church. I don’t look to him, personally, to formulate my thoughts in moral theology any more than I look to Saint Robert Bellarmine to provide me with a methodology for my work of dialogue on ecumenism. He is not the saint whose assistance I invoke, either in teaching classes under the auspices of moral theology or as a confessor. 2016 is also quite removed from 1950…in all facets of theologyWell, St. Alphonsus must have been regarded as an authority when Pius XII declared him patron of confessors in 1950. Honestly, if he’s not regarded as an authority, God help the Church. Honestly, the world really hasn’t changed that much; there’s nothing new under the sun
Saint Isidore is the patron saint of farmers. The tools, processes, science, and technology of farming have undergone innovation since the days of Saint Isidore just as moral theology has undergone innovation and transformation since the days of Alphonsus
Really? It doesn’t seem thus to me. So, I ask: across how many decades are you a professor of liturgy and sacraments, since you find my advice “not good?” Across how many decades have you held faculties to hear confessions?I understood what you were getting at the first time, but some of the advice is not good. I’m not saying you’re a bad priest or anything like that