The Sanctity of The Confessional.

[Jack]

Also, may, you are falling victim to the INTP belief of utopic laws being able to replace current ones.

This, however, does not mean that she is incorrect.

 

[Rakawi]

Any office deemed so sacred that it may deflect noble action without consequence is neither sacred or noble.
Humans can only pretend at sacrosanctity.

Has anyone here participated in confessing their sins to a priest? What are your thoughts and feelings?

 

[Shai Gar]

I never have, because they're hypocrites.

Were I a Christian, I'd obey jesus and not confess publicly like a Heathen.

 

[NaeturVindur]

I never have, because they're hypocrites.

Were I a Christian, I'd obey jesus and not confess publicly like a Heathen.

A public confession is one where the person stands in front of a congregation and shouts his sin for the world to hear. Jesus does prescribe confessing to a priest.

 

[Shai Gar]

Show me the verse where he does.

Public Confession is where you confess to any other human. It is needless anyway, as Jesus said before the lords prayer (only allowable prayer) that god knows everything you think and do anyway.

 

[Skoffin]

They can have their silly confessionals if they want, however I believe certain things should not be kept secret. If someone comes in and tells you they committed a high end crime such as rape or murder I think it is your duty to report it, no matter who you are or your job description. I don't see how protecting sinners is a particularly Christian thing to do either.

 

[NaeturVindur]

Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

So maybe it's not specifically jesus who prescribes it, but its in the bible.

 

[Rakawi]

[quote=N

 

[Riven]

I never have, because they're hypocrites.

Were I a Christian, I'd obey jesus and not confess publicly like a Heathen.

They are a private organisation and corporation for tax purposes.
Before absolution, comes responsibility. Give to Caesar that which is Caesars, which in this case means obeying the laws of men where the laws of god say nothing.

I recall nowhere that jesus mentioned confessions except in the lords prayer where he says god already knows what you have done.
To jesus, confession is nothing more than praying as the heathens do, in many words in public.
PROVE ME WRONG!

You've misquoted twice and since you didn't respond to my post in the other thread I'll bring the explaination here. You are taking two different ideas out of context and then combining them to make a point. In context both ideas are not about confession they are about prayer. A prayer can be a confession but not every confession is a prayer. These are the verses of the two ideas:
[FONT=&quot]
(Matthew 6:5-6) 5" And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”[/FONT]
(Matthew 6:7-8) 7"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. [FONT=&quot]8. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The first passage is a warning against being vain and prideful during prayer (it’s supposed to be a humbling act). The second warns against using repetition because chanting the same thing over and over again was a common practice of those who worshiped Baal, (anyone catch the irony in this?), a pagan god of the time. The giving to Caesar what is Caesar's is also a misqoute. The idea you were referring to is found in Romans 13.

EDIT: Nowhere in the bible does it say you should confess to a priest
[/FONT]

 

[randomsomeone]

Has anyone here participated in confessing their sins to a priest? What are your thoughts and feelings?

Sure I do/have. In the typical pastoral setting the priest is only interested in helping one come to a sense of reconciliation and peace with the community and themselves...and perhaps helping with some spiritual growth or ideas to consider. I have gotten some very good input during confessions...some of these represented real turning points in my understanding. God alone forgives sins (no one argues that), but the prest represents the community in proclaiming peace and reconciliation. That said, I personally hold to the tradition in which almost anybody can be a confessor/soul friend/anam cara, but I will not argue that a priest does rightly have a role in representing the community...they do this in many ways.

James 5:16 mentions this: "therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." This does not, of course, directly refer to the involvement of a priest. Neither was confession the sole realm of the priest in early Irish Christianity, where the practice blossomed. However, acts of reconciliation were most likely practiced all over in the early church, probably both in ritual forms and more private forms. It was part of a type of spiritual friendship....and it is typically the same today.

 

[Barnabas]

Show me the verse where he does.

Public Confession is where you confess to any other human. It is needless anyway, as Jesus said before the lords prayer (only allowable prayer) that god knows everything you think and do anyway.

what maddness is this, the Lord's prayer the only allowable prayer. Surely you jest.

Now if your talking of about praying in the streets, then you mean when Jesus spkoe of the Pharisees whom prayed loud and long prayers to bolster their standings as holy men. That yes is wrong, praying to make yourself look good is wrong, this however does not mean that praying as a congregatiob is wrong.

Like much of the Bible, the wording is ambiguous. The quote works more against your point than for it.

The Bible is as ambiguous as you make it, these subjects are clearly spelled out throughout the NT.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Sure I do/have. In the typical pastoral setting the priest is only interested in helping one come to a sense of reconciliation and peace with the community and themselves...and perhaps helping with some spiritual growth or ideas to consider. I have gotten some very good input during confessions...some of these represented real turning points in my understanding. God alone forgives sins (no one argues that), but the prest represents the community in proclaiming peace and reconciliation. That said, I personally hold to the tradition in which almost anybody can be a confessor/soul friend/anam cara, but I will not argue that a priest does rightly have a role in representing the community...they do this in many ways.

James 5:16 mentions this: "therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." This does not, of course, directly refer to the involvement of a priest. Neither was confession the sole realm of the priest in early Irish Christianity, where the practice blossomed. However, acts of reconciliation were most likely practiced all over in the early church, probably both in ritual forms and more private forms. It was part of a type of spiritual friendship....and it is typically the same today.

When I have gone, it was not to confess to the priest as a rep. of a community, but as God's rep.

 

[randomsomeone]

When I have gone, it was not to confess to the priest as a rep. of a community, but as God's rep.

Yes, the two are related inasmuch as the community of faith is an expression of God in the world. In the end, the presbyter is simply a servant of the community...nothing more, but also nothing less...as the community (all of us) are this unique expression of God individually, and even moreso collectively.

 

[Rakawi]

The Bible is as ambiguous as you make it, these subjects are clearly spelled out throughout the NT.

Judging the bible lucid enough to not require interpretation does a disservice to its authors, and contradicts the millions of forebears that precede us who were compelled to fragment the Christian faith into countless factions over differences in understanding. I may question the origin of its contents, but its ability to fuel critical thought and dissension among its readers has been proven.

If you use dates alone to timeline the birth of various faiths and Christian denominations, greater religious splintering and upheaval occurred during and after the New Testament rather than before it.

So how did you reach this antithesis?
And why invalidate the Old Testament? I see no other reason you would deliberately absent it from your claim.

 

[muir]

And why invalidate the Old Testament? I see no other reason you would deliberately absent it from your claim.

Perhaps it is because the bible is a mess of contradictions

Any piece of work compiled by many different authors, each with their own agenda is of course going to have inconsistencies

I have heard people try to argue that it doesn't matter that there were multiple authors because the holy spirit was working through them all

I have two problems with this. Firstly doesn't it suggest that the holy spirit is a bit.....well inconsistent?

Secondly it sounds like a ploy you might tell a child to avoid telling them a harsher truth

 

[Barnabas]

Judging the bible lucid enough to not require interpretation does a disservice to its authors, and contradicts the millions of forebears that precede us who were compelled to fragment the Christian faith into countless factions over differences in understanding. I may question the origin of its contents, but its ability to fuel critical thought and dissension among its readers has been proven.

If you use dates alone to timeline the birth of various faiths and Christian denominations, greater religious splintering and upheaval occurred during and after the New Testament rather than before it.

So how did you reach this antithesis?
And why invalidate the Old Testament? I see no other reason you would deliberately absent it from your claim.

ha... I never said that there are points ofthe Bible that don't require interpretation, I stated that it's not as ambigous as it's opponents would make it out to be. You would have others believe that it's a mess that can't have a solid mening drawn from it.

I would move secondly into the areas of splintering in the Church. Tell how much do you acyauly know about that. The biggest split that every one nkows about is that of the Catholics and protestants, and while they split into to unique groups They did so not over what they believed to be accuracy of scripture(more likley lack of scripture).

Catholicism hasn't split much from there on out, so you must be talking about the protestant Churches. How much do you know about them, did you know that one group split over whether or not to use instruments during worship on sundays. That had nothig to do with the ambiguity of scripture, only personal preference.

The majority of Churches hold close to identicle views, they simply varry on little things often not even mattersof scripture. Views as to whether or not a child should be baptized as an infant, whether or not we should a catholic structured authority, whom we should allow to take communion.

Splits more often then not come from people with authority getting into a small disagreement with another Church leader and leving the congregation to form his own Church.

Scripture is solid, not easy but definitly solid.


Thirdly why on earth are you jumping to the conclusion that because I mentioned one section of the Bible and not the other, that the other must be invalid. That is an astonding leap logic.

I'll as you a question now, how much of the Bible have you read?

 

[randomsomeone]

I have two problems with this. Firstly doesn't it suggest that the holy spirit is a bit.....well inconsistent?

Not at all....in fact it represents a very high level of spiritual reality. There is one story overall, but the refractions are incredibly diverse between authors, times, cultures, languages, experiences. We do well to break free of anthrophmorphizing God (or the Holy Spirit)....and such a thing is very, very common. We are often stuck with images and ideas we learned in grade school. Sufficient scholarship exists to work through this story and the revelations it contains, although one must be prepared to unlearn as much as they learn. The backstory on these writings is a fascinating as the writings themselves because they are partly the story of a people, not hard history. That a message is conveyed through all this is indicative of the way the Holy Spirit interacts with all people...we are not puppets, we all have shadow selves, and we see only in part, little more. Still, the dots are there to be connected.

Oh, and on the subject of division....yes, Christianity has always been a somewhat diverse religion. Part blessing and part curse I think, but it was this way from the start. However it is interesting that for all the preceived bickering, when you talk to scholars or explore the inner workings of spirituality, there is great agreement. It is actually shocking! Even in the area of dogma, scholars have identified that the reasons for various rifts are virtually gone now and mutually understood, thanks to dialogue, study, and development on various sides ofthe theological divide. Of course, the people in the pew still often think is it very much "us against them", but on a more official level....no, not so much. We really need to start catching up I think.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

... I would move secondly into the areas of splintering in the Church. Tell how much do you acyauly know about that. The biggest split that every one nkows about is that of the Catholics and protestants, and while they split into to unique groups They did so not over what they believed to be accuracy of scripture(more likley lack of scripture).

From the Catholic perspective the largest split has been between the Eastern and Western Churches. The protestant situation was regarded as a departure, rather than a split, because the protestants mostly gave up much of the Faith, Traditions, Sacraments and hierarchy common to ALL of the Churches up until that point (including Churches, whose existence Rome only became aware of in relatively late in history - the Syro-Malabar Church founded by St Thomas the Apostle, which had first contact with the Western Churches in the 15thC, for example).


On the Thread topic:

The Secrecy of the Confessional is conceded by civil laws the status of professional secrecy, as are the medical and legal professions.

If professional secrecy were revoked, it should be done universally, but this would make it almost impossible for the lawyer-client and confessor-penitent relationship to exist, and would probably deter many patients from giving important information to their doctors.

 

[Rakawi]

ha... I never said that there are points ofthe Bible that don't require interpretation, I stated that it's not as ambigous as it's opponents would make it out to be. You would have others believe that it's a mess that can't have a solid mening drawn from it.

I would not.

It's a slow thing for young INFJs to learn that disagreement does not necessitate opposition.

They did so not over what they believed to be accuracy of scripture(more likley lack of scripture).

What do you mean by this?

Catholicism hasn't split much from there on out, so you must be talking about the protestant Churches. How much do you know about them, did you know that one group split over whether or not to use instruments during worship on sundays.

Interesting, which group?

The majority of Churches hold close to identicle views, they simply varry on little things often not even mattersof scripture. Views as to whether or not a child should be baptized as an infant, whether or not we should a catholic structured authority, whom we should allow to take communion.

This I'm aware of, and it's related.

Splits more often then not come from people with authority getting into a small disagreement with another Church leader and leving the congregation to form his own Church.

Scripture is solid, not easy but definitly solid.

It's a large investment of time to research and provide documentation for the history of faiths fragmenting and by what causes. If you're committed to invalidating my opinion, going through the trouble would impress but concern me. --However, the research would merit lively discussion, but this seems more appropriate for the newest religious discussion group we have at the forum.

Thirdly why on earth are you jumping to the conclusion that because I mentioned one section of the Bible and not the other, that the other must be invalid. That is an astonding leap logic.

It certainly was and I said as much. I also asked you about it to give you an opportunity to correct the assumption, but you chose not not to. I'm still interested in learning why if you'll answer the question.

I'll as you a question now, how much of the Bible have you read?

A great deal. The history of my religious education is a personal story that starts when I was very young, but I'd be happy to share with you privately if you'd like.

As a general observation and inquiry apart from the point of this thread and our little by-way, this method of disseminating the "truth of your faith" through online argument seems the least successful approach to garnering newcomers to it. ... Perhaps that's why overzealous adherents bent on disproving all opinions but their own resort to it rather than their leaders. I don't make you out for one, which is why I'm surprised you're engaging in it. Is the debate for the sake of informing your own opinions? If your answer is personal, PM is fine.

 

[Agnus]

Catholic Priests* are not allowed (by church dogma, jesus said nothing about priest/parishioners confessional) to say anything they hear outside of confession to anyone. This is in clear violation of state laws which make them accessories after the fact, which is a crime that has sent people, but no priests, to prison.

I believe that the "sanctity" of The Confessional will be well and truly gone, culturally, by the end of the decade. The Catholics have gone a long way to destroying it for themselves by covering up Pedastry, and now opened a floodgate to reform from outside the church by enforcement of laws to the full extent of the law.

Any Bishop who has heard of Pedastry within the church and not informed the police has become an accessory after the fact and should be punished to set examples.




*Different rules apply for Anglicans, for instance my father is supposed to urge anyone who has committed a crime to turn themselves in, however, unless it is a murder, or he feels they are likely to break the law hurting someone again, he is not allowed to tell anyone.





What are your thoughts on this?

I believe that if the priest is allowed to tell big sins, people simply wouldn't say them to him if they are in fear to make a decision like confessing his big sin or no. And if a person comes to tell his big sins, I believe he has a doubt about doing right thing (at least after a bad one) and to confess his sin not just to a priest but to police too.
I think that a priest can be the one who can help to understand right decision for a person who done a crime and to help him understand how that person should act after his crime. Even if the priest would has a right to say what people have done, the priest's responsibility line would be violated, because a priest is like a "messenger" between god and sinful people.
I am not on the crime side, simply I try to understand why people are going to priest, that's all.