Confession Questions

[fatima]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The Catholic priest does not forgive sins.  Christ does.  The priest saying "your sins are forgiven" is not independent of Christ's forgiveness.  The priest is simply carrying out the will of the Lord as he discerns it.  Exact same as an LDS Bishop.  The penitent does not find comfort in the Priest/Bishop's forgiveness.  He finds comfort in Christ's forgiveness. 

Where Catholics misunderstand the LDS is in the FOCUS of where the forgiveness comes from.  The LDS completely focuses on Christ being the source of all forgiveness whereas the Catholics are more tolerant of saying "the priest forgave my sins" when in fact, Christ did.

LDS do not present a recommend to partake of the Sacrament either. 

 

LDS present need a recommend for the temple.  I'm sure you knew what I meant.  Earlier in the thread LDS were firm in the distinction between the role of the Catholic priest and the role of an LDS bishop.  

[fatima]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

From where I'm sitting, I'm more inclined to say you misunderstood Catholic teaching.

Not likely.

[dahlia]

On 11/23/2017 at 12:38 PM, Vort said:

You are right; there are conditions under which a bishop must contact authorities or otherwise break a confidentiality. 

What if someone came to the bishop with something like an extramarital affair that will lead to divorce? Does the bishop handle all that (disfellowship? excommunication? something else?) himself?  With the other members of the bishopric? With any of the priesthood counsels? I'm just wandering how far down the line a confidential matter might go. 

[Jane_Doe]

15 minutes ago, fatima said:

LDS present need a recommend for the temple.  I'm sure you knew what I meant.  Earlier in the thread LDS were firm in the distinction between the role of the Catholic priest and the role of an LDS bishop.  

You're mixing up apples and oranges here.

Catholics do not require an interview before partaking of the Lord's Supper.  Likewise, LDS do not require an interview before partaking of the Lord's Supper.  (That's apples and apples).

Catholics do require an interview before participating in latter priesthood rites (becoming a priest, getting married, etc).  Likewise LDS do require an interview before participating in latter priesthood rites (becoming a priest, getting married, etc).   (That's oranges and oranges).

Does that make sense @fatima?

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, dahlia said:

What if someone came to the bishop with something like an extramarital affair that will lead to divorce? Does the bishop handle all that (disfellowship? excommunication? something else?) himself?  With the other members of the bishopric? With any of the priesthood counsels? I'm just wandering how far down the line a confidential matter might go. 

If there is a matter which requires church discipline, that is discussed with the person and the necessary council together.  For a non-Melchedisk priesthood holder, that council is the bishopric; for a-Melchedisk priesthood holder, it's people at the stake level.  

[zil]

19 minutes ago, fatima said:

Earlier in the thread LDS were firm in the distinction between the role of the Catholic priest and the role of an LDS bishop.

I believe @anatess2 is the only Mormon in this conversation who was once Catholic.  If that is correct, then her comparison of the two roles would likely be more accurate than the rest of ours.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

I believe @anatess2 is the only Mormon in this conversation who was once Catholic.  

Speaking as a former Catholic (born and raised)  , just remember that even Catholics often have no idea about Church teaching. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by MormonGator

[Blossom76]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Speaking as a former Catholic (born and raised)  , just remember that even Catholics often have no idea about Church teaching. 

This is so true. I don't know my catholic faith very well at all.

My husband does though, while he is happy for me to investigate the LDS faith (he took a while but he is ok with it now) he is quite insistent that I learn the Catholic faith properly as well before leaving it, which I think is fair enough.  

After all how can I declare a faith false and leave for another one if I don't even understand either of them thoroughly. (especially when both claim to be the only true church started by Jesus Christ - they can't both be right, it's one or the other)

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

This is so true. I don't know my catholic faith very well at all.

My husband does though, while he is happy for me to investigate the LDS faith (he took a while but he is ok with it now) he is quite insistent that I learn the Catholic faith properly as well before leaving it, which I think is fair enough.  

After all how can I declare a faith false and leave for another one if I don't even understand either of them thoroughly. (especially when both claim to be the only true church started by Jesus Christ - they can't both be right, it's one or the other)

You are doing the right thing, for sure! 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

This is so true. I don't know my catholic faith very well at all.

My husband does though, while he is happy for me to investigate the LDS faith (he took a while but he is ok with it now) he is quite insistent that I learn the Catholic faith properly as well before leaving it, which I think is fair enough.  

After all how can I declare a faith false and leave for another one if I don't even understand either of them thoroughly. (especially when both claim to be the only true church started by Jesus Christ - they can't both be right, it's one or the other)

You are blessed with an amazing husband Blosson76.  

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, fatima said:

LDS present need a recommend for the temple.  I'm sure you knew what I meant. 

The Eucharist is not the same as the Temple.  The Sacrament is the equivalent to the Eucharist without the transubstantiation part (unique to Catholic).  There is no equivalent to the Temple in Catholic faith therefore, they are not comparable. 

 

3 hours ago, fatima said:

Earlier in the thread LDS were firm in the distinction between the role of the Catholic priest and the role of an LDS bishop.  

And I provided clarification to both the LDS and Catholic contributors to this thread.

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Catholics do require an interview before participating in latter priesthood rites (becoming a priest, getting married, etc).  Likewise LDS do require an interview before participating in latter priesthood rites (becoming a priest, getting married, etc).   (That's oranges and oranges).

Yes,  this is oranges and oranges.  Slightly different with marriages because Catholics don't have the sealing... But what fatima referred to was the temple recommend interview.  Temple ordinances (including temple marriages) do not exist in Catholic teaching, therefore, there is no Catholic orange for that.

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, fatima said:

Not likely.

Okay, let's go back.

Verse 23:  ""If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained". 

Does this mean that the priest becomes judge according to his own will or does this mean that the priest becomes the judge through his discernment of the will of the Lord and conveys Christ's judgment?

Appealing to absurdum:  A priest, as he is not God, may have a will different from that of the Lord's.  Can he then give absolution if Christ does not will it?  Does Christ then have to make His will align to the Priest's?

As you can see, the source of forgiveness of sins against God is God.  Not the priest.

[Jane_Doe]

20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes,  this is oranges and oranges.  Slightly different with marriages because Catholics don't have the sealing... But what fatima referred to was the temple recommend interview.  Temple ordinances (including temple marriages) do not exist in Catholic teaching, therefore, there is no Catholic orange for that.

The comparison between these rites isn't as direct, and the theology & practice do differ, but I do still see some parallels.

Before a Catholic person becomes a deacon or priest or other office, they are interviewed and determined if they are spiritual ready for it.  Likewise for LDS, both becoming a deacon, priest, or endowed.  

Before a Catholic person wants to marry in a Catholic sacramental marriage, they are interviewed and determined if they are spiritual ready for it.  Likewise for LDS.

[Blueskye2]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The Eucharist is not the same as the Temple.  The Sacrament is the equivalent to the Eucharist without the transubstantiation part (unique to Catholic).  There is no equivalent to the Temple in Catholic faith therefore, they are not comparable. 

 

And I provided clarification to both the LDS and Catholic contributors to this thread.

Temple theology in Catholicism clearly points to the liturgy of the Eucharist, where Christ is present body, blood, soul and divinity. Jesus naming himself the new temple, that would be raised in three days. 

The Eucharist is, absolutely, for Catholics, at same level of sacredness and importance as the LDS temple is for LDS. 

We are not sealed to each other.  We (the baptized) are sealed to Jesus Christ. It is in our communion with Him, in Him, and through Him, that we are made one body. All of us, as St. Paul wrote, the living stones of God’s temple.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Blueskye2]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, let's go back.

Verse 23:  ""If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained". 

Does this mean that the priest becomes judge according to his own will or does this mean that the priest becomes the judge through his discernment of the will of the Lord and conveys Christ's judgment?

Appealing to absurdum:  A priest, as he is not God, may have a will different from that of the Lord's.  Can he then give absolution if Christ does not will it?  Does Christ then have to make His will align to the Priest's?

As you can see, the source of forgiveness of sins against God is God.  Not the priest.

By the Cross, someone who is seeking forgiveness, already has the ultimate evidence that their sins are already forgiven.  What the priest gives is absolution, which is a declaration that the penitent’s sins are forgiven. A priest cannot say, the Cross was ineffective for you, and you are not forgiven.

As I think you probably know, each Catholic Sacrament has a form, a substance and graces. The substance, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, is the contrition of the penitent.  A priest makes a judgement as to whether or not the substance (contrition) is there. That’s it, the presence of contrition is the only judgement the priest is making. He will not offer absolution without contrition. It would be like asking a priest to baptize someone without water. Just isn’t possible because water is the substance for the Sacrament of Baptism.

An absurd example of contrition being absent, would be in a a movie, where someone commits adultery over and over and goes to confession between each tryst.  In real life, absolution would not be given as it would be obvious to a priest there is no contrition. 

Absolution assures us of the forgiveness that God has already gifted to a contrite penitent...the Sacraments are for our benefit, not for God’s.

[Jane_Doe]

12 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Temple theology in Catholicism clearly points to the liturgy of the Eucharist, where Christ is present body, blood, soul and divinity. Jesus naming himself the new temple, that would be raised in three days. 

The Eucharist is, absolutely, for Catholics, at same level of sacredness and importance as the LDS temple is for LDS. 

We are not sealed to each other.  We (the baptized) are sealed to Jesus Christ. It is in our communion with Him, in Him, and through Him, that we are made one body. All of us, as St. Paul wrote, the living stones of God’s temple.

I don't think anyone here is trying to downplay how Catholics feel about the Eucharist.  Still, it is proper to compare the Lord's Supper to the Lord's Supper, becoming a priest to becoming a priest, getting married to married, etc.  That's apples and apples, not mixing up different rites.

[Blueskye2]

6 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I don't think anyone here is trying to downplay how Catholics feel about the Eucharist.  Still, it is proper to compare the Lord's Supper to the Lord's Supper, becoming a priest to becoming a priest, getting married to married, etc.  That's apples and apples, not mixing up different rites.

That is not what Fatima compared, which is where this whole comparison tangent started. Fatima said:

Quote

Catholic priest withhold judgement in participation in the sum and summit of the Catholic faith (the Eucharist) while the LDS bishop does (necessarily) pass judgement in withholding an individual from participation in the sum and summit of the LDS faith.

Anatess said:

Quote

The Eucharist is not the same as the Temple.  The Sacrament is the equivalent to the Eucharist without the transubstantiation part (unique to Catholic).  There is no equivalent to the Temple in Catholic faith therefore, they are not comparable. 

And I said:

Quote

 

Temple theology in Catholicism clearly points to the liturgy of the Eucharist, where Christ is present body, blood, soul and divinity. Jesus naming himself the new temple, that would be raised in three days. 

The Eucharist is, absolutely, for Catholics, at same level of sacredness and importance as the LDS temple is for LDS. 

 

Our churches are temples, a place where God dwells, body, blood, soul and divinity. Each church has a tabernacle, where any consecrated Eucharist is found.  The Book of Revelations is full of Eucharist/temple/heaven symbolism, that we recognize. Temple theology abounds in Catholicism, with an understanding that is much different than LDS, but neverless, no less in comparison.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

That is not what Fatima compared, which is where this whole comparison tangent started. Fatima said:

"Catholic priest withhold judgement in participation in the sum and summit of the Catholic faith (the Eucharist) while the LDS bishop does (necessarily) pass judgement in withholding an individual from participation in the sum and summit of the LDS faith."

Yes, that is Fatima illogically mixing up rites.

[Blueskye2]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

Yes, that is Fatima illogically mixing up rites.

Not illogical, at all.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Not illogical, at all.

Comparing the Lord's Supper to the Lord's Supper is logical.  Apples to apples.  1 to 1.

Simple as that.  I'm sorry if that doesn't make sense to you, I cannot break it down any simpler.

[Blueskye2]

5 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Comparing the Lord's Supper to the Lord's Supper is logical.  Apples to apples.  1 to 1.

Simple as that.  I'm sorry if that doesn't make sense to you, I cannot break it down any simpler.

I never said that this comparison was illogical.

[fatima]

On 11/28/2017 at 7:00 PM, Jane_Doe said:

You're mixing up apples and oranges here.

Catholics do not require an interview before partaking of the Lord's Supper.  Likewise, LDS do not require an interview before partaking of the Lord's Supper.  (That's apples and apples).

Catholics do require an interview before participating in latter priesthood rites (becoming a priest, getting married, etc).  Likewise LDS do require an interview before participating in latter priesthood rites (becoming a priest, getting married, etc).   (That's oranges and oranges).

Does that make sense @fatima?

The comparison I was trying to make was participation in the most sacred experience in each of our respective faiths: the Eucharist and the Temple.  Whether one of us calls it a sacrament or an ordinance was not my point.  Catholic should be examining themselves before presenting themselves to receive Jesus in the Eucharist, LDS (from what I understand) cannot go into the Temple under certain circumstances.  I am not comparing Catholic Communion to LDS Communion.

[fatima]

On 11/29/2017 at 8:46 PM, Jane_Doe said:

Comparing the Lord's Supper to the Lord's Supper is logical.  Apples to apples.  1 to 1.

Simple as that.  I'm sorry if that doesn't make sense to you, I cannot break it down any simpler.

I didn't compare Lord's Supper to Lord's Supper.  I compared the greatest gift/experience in the Catholic faith to the greatest gift/experience in the LDS faith, the Temple.  

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, fatima said:

The comparison I was trying to make was participation in the most sacred experience in each of our respective faiths: the Eucharist and the Temple.  

You're misunderstanding LDS theology here, that's one reason your comparison is faulty.