Katholic Kiwi Kathedral (Catholocism General) - Byzantine? Ethnic? Roman? It doesn't matter. It's a place for Catholic Kiwis to discuss Catholicism and inquirers to inquire

Who is the best Catholic apologist alive today?

  • Bishop Robert Barron

    Votes: 44 47.3%
  • Fr. Mike Schmitz

    Votes: 41 44.1%
  • Trent Horn

    Votes: 24 25.8%
  • Jimmy Akin

    Votes: 14 15.1%
  • Joe Heschmeyer

    Votes: 3 3.2%
  • Matt Fradd

    Votes: 6 6.5%
  • Scott Hahn

    Votes: 13 14.0%
  • Brayden Cook - TheCatechumen

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Taylor Marshall

    Votes: 3 3.2%
  • Christian Fagner

    Votes: 3 3.2%
  • James White

    Votes: 7 7.5%

  • Total voters
    93
Am I an idiot, or is this just Donatism?
Not really, but it doesn't really matter because it's still the same anyway IMO.
Donatism was a unique situation, lots of personal bad blood leading to enduring bad blood with that one, the base point of contention being the taint of the original (heh) sin of traditores being heritable to their (appointed spiritual) heirs somehow invalidating the line of apostolic succession. But that in itself was another political issue masquerading as a doctrinal one. Whereas with modern Sedes it's another facsimile of dispute they're wearing (the seat is vacant, not itself corrupted).
 
I once heard a priest talking about why it wasn't an option to force someone to turn themself in, and it was basically the idea that while the priest wasn't violating the seal of confession, but they were basically using their parishioner to do so. Not sure if that's the actual rule or just his take on it though.
It’s an interesting take but I don’t think it’s necessarily correct, I’ve met a priest before that did tell their parishioner to turn themselves in because they had killed someone, going to confession was their first step towards Justice but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it would be best for society or the parishioner if they let themselves out. If they have a conscious even after committing a heinous crime, they would be tortured by the fact that they could be arrested at any time and taken away, so it would be better over all to turn themselves in as an act of penance
 
It’s an interesting take but I don’t think it’s necessarily correct, I’ve met a priest before that did tell their parishioner to turn themselves in because they had killed someone, going to confession was their first step towards Justice but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it would be best for society or the parishioner if they let themselves out. If they have a conscious even after committing a heinous crime, they would be tortured by the fact that they could be arrested at any time and taken away, so it would be better over all to turn themselves in as an act of penance
I've heard this perspective from priests as well.

Like, to go to something less extreme, if someone comes to confession and says they get drunk all the time and they want to stop but they've tried and they can't, would the priest not be able to order "go to a couple AA meetings" as a penance? This is essentially the same thing.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: AnsemSoD1
Went to a funeral for a relative that was a Buddhist. As far as I know, he had never followed Christ in any capacity and was Buddhist really by sheer cultural inertia rather than any real conviction. What are some thoughts on the chance for salvation for people like this? It was a struggle to talk about it to my children, who assume he’s going to heaven.
 
Went to a funeral for a relative that was a Buddhist. As far as I know, he had never followed Christ in any capacity and was Buddhist really by sheer cultural inertia rather than any real conviction. What are some thoughts on the chance for salvation for people like this? It was a struggle to talk about it to my children, who assume he’s going to heaven.
Personally, I believe that if someone is truly ashamed for their sins, accepts Christ, then there is a possibility for salvation, assuming the person experiences true contrition before death. However, I can't speak for whether or not they truly believed in God, or even a higher power, considering modern Buddhism is rather atheistic. Ultimately I'd place it up to God and His ultimate judgement, and you should pray for this person's immortal soul.
 
is this just Donatism?
I think Donatism was about sacraments being invalid based on the virtue of the priest? The sedevacantist position on many things had more to do with "form and matter" and translations and such. All the way up to invalidity of holy orders which would make all the sacraments performed by an invalid priest (except baptism, of course) invalid as well. The nonsense about annulments was based on the idea that annulments for so-called psychological reasons were nonsense (among other things).
I can't insert @Froggy Fresh Sextape ...but a dear one of mine who's a very devout Catholic was drinking and whoring, and whoring and drinking, and this was a torment to him, because (to his mind) he was trying very hard to quit both avocations. His priest told him in confession as a penance to go to one AA meeting before his next confession. So a couple weeks later, he wakes up from another serious drinking and whoring session and feels he needs to go to confession. But he remembers he hadn't done the penance from the last confession. So he calls the local AA Intergroup to find a meeting, and off he goes.

Long story short, he's been sober, making meetings for almost 30 years. The whoring took a bit longer to leave off LOL but he's been in a cheat-free marriage for double-digit years.
 
The new Archbishop in Detroit is dismantling everything. Basically any seminarian who called out Francis for speaking out of both sides of his mouth is getting axed with no reason.

The next big scandal for the Church in the US (and many churches in the US) is going to be human trafficking and knowing that traffickers were abusing Catholic Charities and likely embedded to the knowledge of some priests like the Episcopal Church during the 70’s with Puerto Rican terrorists.
 
The new Archbishop in Detroit is dismantling everything. Basically any seminarian who called out Francis for speaking out of both sides of his mouth is getting axed with no reason.
Ed Peters was a MAGA know it all boomer. Good riddance. We learned well in the 70s and 80s the damage this politicians turned theologians do to the Church.

The Catholic priesthood is for men only to be alter Christus for the Salvations of Souls. It's not about Trump, Biden or owning the libs on Xitter. And that goes for their professors as well. I despise any cleric or theologian who makes their political takes known. The other 2 were bad but Peters was awful. As for Francis the only maybe 2 faced thing he said was when he said we must love gay people one month and then the next month complained there were too many faggots in the seminary. That was funny and not at all contradictory.
The next big scandal for the Church in the US (and many churches in the US) is going to be human trafficking and knowing that traffickers were abusing Catholic Charities and likely embedded to the knowledge of some priests like the Episcopal Church during the 70’s with Puerto Rican terrorists.
LOL release the Epstein list first Trump
 
It took me a while to understand why Fr Altman was censured and his take could have risked the 501 c 3 status of the church. Also I basically agree that it's not a priests job to tell people how to vote, but it should be obvious just based on something like abortion laws. I'm never going to vote for anyone who wants more relaxed abortion laws.
 
Like, to go to something less extreme, if someone comes to confession and says they get drunk all the time and they want to stop but they've tried and they can't, would the priest not be able to order "go to a couple AA meetings" as a penance? This is essentially the same thing.
Absolution in Confession isn't dependent on completion of the penance; it's a helpful addition to the sacrament, but not necessary. Hence why some lib and boomer priests don't give penances when they hear Confessions. A priest can recommend material restitution or turning oneself in as a penance, but absolution is not conditioned by the penance and the priest cannot make absolution contingent on a penitent telling their sins to another person. That is, as @A Very Big Fish 's priest said, using spiritual authority to break the seal in a roundabout way.
Here's an old, short article Jimmy Akin wrote on this.

Ed Peters was a MAGA know it all boomer. Good riddance. We learned well in the 70s and 80s the damage this politicians turned theologians do to the Church.

The Catholic priesthood is for men only to be alter Christus for the Salvations of Souls. It's not about Trump, Biden or owning the libs on Xitter. And that goes for their professors as well. I despise any cleric or theologian who makes their political takes known. The other 2 were bad but Peters was awful. As for Francis the only maybe 2 faced thing he said was when he said we must love gay people one month and then the next month complained there were too many faggots in the seminary. That was funny and not at all contradictory.
Yup, that's what we need; hasty dismissals of faithful and long-serving Catholic professors so that an Archbishop installed less than 6 months ago will feel better. I know a fair amount of guys at Sacred Heart Seminary and this has really caused them to lose faith in the Archdiocese of Detroit, the new Archbishop, and that the seminary will be well run in the future.
 
Yup, that's what we need; hasty dismissals of faithful and long-serving Catholic professors so that an Archbishop installed less than 6 months ago will feel better. I know a fair amount of guys at Sacred Heart Seminary and this has really caused them to lose faith in the Archdiocese of Detroit, the new Archbishop, and that the seminary will be well run in the future.
The problem is the faithful part wasn't there each one of them challenged the teaching authority of the Papacy. Any Bishop in another time would have them purged. To copy Mother Angelica I am sick and tired of the Conservative Church in America. They are worse than the Liberal Church in America ever was. NCR, Commonweal and those wacky hippie nuns at least claimed to be a new thing these men claim to be Catholic Tradition and they are not. For their own ego and grift they confused the faithful and caused schism and they will go to hell for it. Mother Yes and Teacher Yes.

My prayer is that Pope Leo brings the same fists that Pius X did we sure need it.
 
The problem is the faithful part wasn't there each one of them challenged the teaching authority of the Papacy.
They didn't "[challenge] the teaching authority of the Papacy" they noted where particular statements by the Holy Father created friction with the usual interpretation of the Deposit of Faith; this is a valid subject for theologians, canon lawyers, and professors to be writing on, as the Pope is just as subject to the Deposit of Faith as anyone else.
You seem to be imagining the Church as some sort of cult of personality around the Holy Father where theological debate and criticism is verboten, and that has never been the case. It can be difficult to balance the two, but despite his high office, the Pope is human and no Catholic is expected to act like he (or the staff that writes for him) doesn't make mistakes.
Frankly, your glee at their dismissal seems to have a lot more to do with their politics than with their theological writings and statements.
 
Absolution in Confession isn't dependent on completion of the penance; it's a helpful addition to the sacrament, but not necessary.
No, the absolution is invalid if you refuse to do the penance. If you legitimately forget about it or try and can't then it's still valid though.

To copy Mother Angelica I am sick and tired of the Conservative Church in America. They are worse than the Liberal Church in America ever was.
The Vatican has kept eyes on the USCCB ever since they tried slipping Dual Covenant Theology in their publications and hoping nobody would notice. They're uncomfortably chummy with the evangelical right.
 

1000032059.webp
 
No, the absolution is invalid if you refuse to do the penance. If you legitimately forget about it or try and can't then it's still valid though.
Simply not true. Refusing to complete a simple and proper penance could be an issue in itself and doing no penance means there is no temporal restitution for sins (time in purgatory) but absolution is completed in the sacrament and not contingent on completion of the penance, including active refusal.
I'm having trouble finding an authoritative document that states it in a clear and inarguable way, but lets look at the Catechism real quick.
CCC 1459 & 1460

Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."

The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him."
The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of "him who strengthens" us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth "fruits that befit repentance." These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father. - Council of Trent
The Catechism indicates that the absolution is an unmerited gift of Christ and that the penance is a method of purgation and spiritual growth, as opposed to a requirement for absolution.
I'm genuinely curious what makes you think absolution is dependent on the penance because I've never heard or read that anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Simply not true. Refusing to complete a simple and proper penance could be an issue in itself and doing no penance means there is no temporal restitution for sins (time in purgatory) but absolution is completed in the sacrament and not contingent on completion of the penance, including active refusal.
I believe @Froggy Fresh Sextape is correct here. If a penitent approaches the Sacrament of Confession with a will to refuse any reasonable penance that the confessor imposes, it would be invalid (that is to say, the Sacramental forgiveness of sins would not have taken place). Penance (also called satisfaction), is an integral part of the Sacrament of Confession:
Fourteenth Session of the Council of Trent (Chapter III) said:
The acts of the penitent himself, namely, contrition, confession and satisfaction, constitute the matter of this sacrament, which acts, inasmuch as they are by God's institution required in the penitent for the integrity of the sacrament and for the full and complete remission of sins, are for this reason called the parts of penance. (source)
All the moral theology books I've consulted have said that it is necessary for the validity of Confession for the penitent to intend to receive and fulfil a reasonable penance:
Prümmer said:
The penitent is bound not only to accept but also to fulfil any reasonable penance imposed by his confessor.
The penitent is so obliged, seeing that the penance is an integral part of the sacrament of Penance. Therefore anyone who wishes to receive the sacrament must complete its integral parts. (source)
Koch and Preuss said:
The penitent is strictly obliged to perform the penance imposed, provided, of course, it be just and reasonable. To go to confession with the express purpose of not accepting or not performing the penance imposed, would be to receive the Sacrament invalidly as well and unworthily. (source)
Jone said:
573. ...It is a mortal sin not to perform a grave penance which has been imposed sub gravi for mortal sins. If the penitent before receiving absolution is minded not to perform such penance, his Confession would be invalid. (source)
A penitent who has confessed all the mortal sins that he is aware of, has contrition for them, intends to do his (reasonable) penance, is forgiven his sins the moment he is absolved. If he then doesn't do his penance, the absolution is of course still valid, although he may have committed another sin through his failure to do it.
 
If a penitent approaches the Sacrament of Confession with a will to refuse any reasonable penance that the confessor imposes, it would be invalid (that is to say, the Sacramental forgiveness of sins would not have taken place). Penance (also called satisfaction), is an integral part of the Sacrament of Confession:
Yes, essentially, refusing to even try to complete a penance is a sign that you were not contrite and therefore didn't fulfill the conditions for valid absolution.

It's kinda similar to an annulment where the Church declares that a marriage never happened because one or both spouses were not properly disposed for sacramental validity.

Also I don't think many Catholics know this but you can ask another priest to commute your penance if it's impossible or causing undue hardship.
 
I believe @Froggy Fresh Sextape is correct here. If a penitent approaches the Sacrament of Confession with a will to refuse any reasonable penance that the confessor imposes, it would be invalid (that is to say, the Sacramental forgiveness of sins would not have taken place). Penance (also called satisfaction), is an integral part of the Sacrament of Confession:
I suppose I wasn't taking into account someone premeditating a refusal of any penance whatsoever and agree that would invalidate the Sacrament because it indicates a lack of contrition in approaching the sacrament. I've seen discussions of the reasonability of penances being a determining factor, but I appreciate the citations that so long as the penance is just and reasonable, the penitent is in fact bound to complete them to the best of his ability.
Yes, essentially, refusing to even try to complete a penance is a sign that you were not contrite and therefore didn't fulfill the conditions for valid absolution.
The issue in question though is whether or not a priest can use the sacrament to compel a person to tell their sins to people outside the confessional. This would most assuredly not be a reasonable penance because it is compelling a person to violate the Seal of Confession against their will, when the Seal is totally inviolable. And as we've seen, a penitent is not bound to complete unreasonable or impossible penances.
The only person able to decide if what is said in Confession exits the confessional is the penitent, absent any duress.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: AnsemSoD1 and 412-L
It's in the news currently, but to me this is very straightforward, maybe I'm not seeing something others are.

The clergy should be mandatory reporters of CSA in all instances unless doing so would break the seal of confession. But during confession, a good priest will withhold absolution if the penitent doesn’t intend to rectify his ways, or if the offender doesn't agree to turn themselves in to the authorities as a part of their penance.

Churchwise: In the most extreme case this does not actually improve the reputation of the church as priests (whether they be pedophilic priests or just committed to the privacy of confessions) will not report child abuse from confessors and be jailed or defrocked in highly public incidents.

Child safety wise: People will just stop confessing to illegal things after the initial wave of people getting in trouble. You'll probably not get much usable information from such confessions or priests just won't say anything.

Realistically: Its already the law in several places and has not really changed anything. Some countries like Canada make everybody who works with children a mandatory reporter. How would somebody know if a priest broke the seal and reported or did not break the seal kept it private? Its a meaningless law that changes very little.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: AnsemSoD1
Back