It’s equally common in my world to engage with posters who can’t be bothered to watch movies before offering a review. The basic facts, sans mockery, have been laid out by the Diocese, and are in agreement with Mehta’s video.
Benjamin Franklin was one of the founding fathers of the United States.
No. He’s quite inaccurate about many things – especially, the way he construes the situation and how he interprets the response of the Archdiocese!
I’m expecting that, if he’s gonna make claims, that he’s accurate. Or that he’s researched sufficiently. Or that he can properly read and interpret what the CDF and Archdiocese has written. By my count, it’s already three strikes on those points, so… you’re out, batter!
That’s Mehta’s claim. And it’s inaccurate.
No, it doesn’t “include a deathbed confession of mortal sins.” It can also include recourse to the sacrament of reconciliation, but normally does not. (In fact, in my experience working in my parish, people only call for anointing when their loved one is already very near death. It’s distressing that people misunderstand the sacrament so much.)
No. And, to tell the truth, even if that confession was invalid, any subsequent confession suffices, so there’s no real net effect on the person.
Not the conclusions that Mehta comes to, however, and that’s where his video goes off the rails in terms of its believability.
Please tell me what my error was and I’d be glad to read it.
EOs haven’t taught that those who are unbaptized are definitively excluded from salvation, but at any rate, I don’t want to change the subject to Orthodox beliefs here since it’s a Catholicism-based thread.
Could you please provide a Catechism verse to that effect - that someone who does not get absolved of mortal sins through no fault of their own is definitively not deprived of the intended absolution?
Could you please provide some citation to back up your claim - preferably from the Catechism? Right now I just see this:
The RC church also says that a layman can’t absolve, but if you can cite Catholic teaching to support your claim I’d be happy to read it.
Catholic Answers says: “That phrase [Last Rites] refers to the three sacraments—confession, anointing of the sick, and final Holy Communion” - See below:ReaderT:
No, it doesn’t “include a deathbed confession of mortal sins.” It can also include recourse to the sacrament of reconciliation, but normally does not
From the citation you provided:
Sacramental confession isn’t a necessary part of the visit that’s normally called “last rites” (which isn’t, as it turns out, a moniker for a ‘sacrament’, per se, but a practice which may include multiple sacraments).
Interesting - I never heard that before. Could you please provide a source that says “A subsequent confession will cover previously unabsolved mortal sins, even if the penitent does not say them.”ReaderT:
No. And, to tell the truth, even if that confession was invalid, any subsequent confession suffices, so there’s no real net effect on the person.
By my world, I dont mean online, I am talking real people with real conversations face to face. People I know and love. Their most common errors in understanding that lead them prey to secular gossip include the homosexual issue and the sin/ forgiveness issues. Usually simple conversations with ’ well thats not correct, this is actually what the Church believes’ clears such issues up.
That still does not make him an excellent tactician or horseman, re that poem. We could discuss the quality of nails and blacksmithing too, But these are irrelevant to this thread and off topic.
I have not gotten back to your reply to me reader T, not sure which thread its on, and would like to learn a little about the Russian Orthodox Church first. We do both share St Serguis I know.
I have never heard of an invalid ordination and to my recollection I have never met anyone who has. Here is a short article related to this notion:
Welcome to this thread, where the topic is two recent invalid priestly ordinations.
But again, no guarantee. And if all we can say is “It seems unlikely that Grandma will be tormented for all eternity” (but it’s not a 0% chance, and given what the Catechism says about mortal sins, there’s reason to worry), that is of course very far from comforting.
Yes, but having your sins absolved outside of confession requires a perfect act of contrition. Imperfect contrition — sorrow for one’s sins based upon fear of the punishment of Hell— is all that you say is needed for a priest to absolve you in the confessional, and while I’m sure some people reach the state of perfect contrition, not everyone who goes to confession does (they don’t need to, to be absolved) and so there’s many whose sins would not have been absolved this way when they went to the non-priest. Also, according to Catechism 1452 even a person with perfect contrition “obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible” which is not the case here - the people believed they’d already confessed.
The baptisms of Fr. Hood were alright. Other sacraments were not valid because matter, form, and faculties are needed for confession, confirmation, marriage, and celebration of Mass (and faculties for Mass more than once in a day). There is a canon for marriage case where the minister “cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience” persisting for a period of more than a month or in the danger of death. (CIC 1116)
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...77101EA5EB66E35FCE98771&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
As an FYI, the only reason I brought up the EO, is that your post (at least the way it read to me, I could be wrong) seemed to treat the issue as a peculiar RC one, and one that was potentially negative. That was surprising to me come coming from an EO person.
Yes, bob - “if”. Well, the Catechism tells us how we can know if mortal sins have definitively been forgiven, and neither of the ways applies here:
Even if it was perfect they’re not off the hook, because perfect contrition only obtains forgiveness if it includes that firm resolution to confess these sins later (CCC 1452).
So, like I’ve been saying throughout this whole thread: no guarantee - no assurance - that they escaped, and plenty of reason to worry, because they definitively died with unconfessed mortal sin. Whatever the chance may be that they’re in hell, we know one thing: the Catechism doesn’t say it’s 0%. So what odds are you comfortable with: 5% (1 in 20)? 10% chance they’re in hell?
I don’t think that I wrote what you placed in italics, no?
Except that, what you’re saying is “through no fault of her own, Grandma didn’t successfully complete the process of absolution of her sins.” That’s similar to a situation in which a person dies on the way to the confessional. The Church doesn’t say that God exclaims “Gotcha!” and condemns them to hell because they weren’t able to complete the action they intended to take. Same deal here.
That’s a nice try, but it doesn’t hold up. You’re assuming that these folks never went to confession again. That’s a rather tenuous assumption.
Again, you’re building a straw man argument without evidence.