A great question -- the question in front of me, actually -- and I'm struggling not only to determine what is true doctrinally, but how to renew my Catholicism if I should conclude, after my discernment, that Catholicism is true. It's a Kierkegaardian dilemma -- what good is truth if it is not subjective, by which I mean able to be appropriated and incarnated in the life of a subject? What does one do if one recognizes that (say) Catholicism is true, but for whatever reason it remains only a cerebral thing, and one has genuine trouble revivifying it in one's life?
Stan Guthrie at Christianity Today published his interview with Your Working Boy, in which I helpfully clarify matters:
Why are you, as a Christian, a crunchy conservative rather than a crunchy liberal?
Chiefly it has to do with what Pope John Paul II called "culture of life" issues. Not only am I pro-life, but I'm also extremely concerned about
biotechnology, cloning, stem cells, and issues like that, which get a serious hearing in Republican Party circles, but not in Democratic circles. The demonization of pro-lifers among liberals is terribly unfortunate, because Democrats could appeal to people like me if they didn't seem to treat religious and social conservatives as anathema. I can make an argument against the death penalty in Republican circles. It's not a popular argument, but I can get a fair hearing. I don't know any pro-life Democrats who can make their argument within
their circles and get a fair hearing.
Do you have to grow your own vegetables and wear Birkenstocks to be a crunchy con?
No, not at all! What this is ultimately about is not organic vegetables or our sartorial choices but how we choose to order our lives in relation to the material world. Ultimately, faith and family are at the center of crunchy conservatism—no matter what you put on your feet.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Curious:
I don't know if the difference between Catholic and Orthodox confession seems like splitting hairs to you, but it certainly doesn't seem like a serious doctrinal difference, merely a different ritual.
In Orthodoxy, a priest is required to be present to hear the sins of the penitant, correct? After which, he is required to offer a prayer or blessing, at which time the grace inherent in the sacrament is conferred? And the sacrament is not deemed valid if the priest is not present to perform these functions?
And that through the sacrament, the penitent's sins are forgiven by God and he becomes reconciled with God?
Correct me if I'm wrong about those assumptions about Orthodox doctrine. To me, it sounds exactly the same as the Catholic version, only the words and precise ritual differ.
The Catechism says, "The confessor is not the master of God's forgiveness, but its servant." CCC 1466. Just as in the Eucharist, where it is only through the power of God that the priest (and only a priest) may consecrate bread and wine and it becomes the body and blood of Christ, it is only through the power of God that a priest may grant absolution of one's sins.
If the priest's presence and blessing are not necessary for the sacramental forgiveness of sins, then why is he there in the first place?>
Mike, I think I was confused because I heard on catholic radio something flukey or wierd about a distinction between perfect and imperfect confession. It got be a bit turned around. I should have known better and checked out the CCC.
In light of the CCC quote, I don't see much difference in the execution of either confession.
Thanks for your contribution.
R/
c>
Curious, I am not sure what you were listening to on the radio, although we do have doctrines (defined in Trent) regarding perfect and imperfect "contrition." These mainly deal with the penitent's true sorrow for sins and desire to reconcile with God. Basically, if one is not truly sorry, he does not make "perfect contrition."
Catholics often refer to the idea of "making a good confession." I am not sure if the Orthodox use similar terminology. Basically, this means that one has made a clear examination of conscience, is truly penitant, and confesses all sins that he or she can recall.
Another aspect with regards to forgiveness of sins is the idea of mortal and venial sin and what is required to fully reconcile with God. In Catholicism, the Church teaches that some sins (murder, fornication, robbing a bank, blasphemy, etc., done with full knowledge and free will) constitute a person completely turning his back on God. Mortal sins. These MUST be sacramentally absolved. Less serious sins damage the relationship with God, and contrition and sorrow for these sins, with the full intention to confess can serve to fully reconcile one with God. Maybe that was what the flukey or weird conversation was about.>
Where can I find the Act of Contrition for confession
For you Ruth Moore
An Act
of
Contrition
O my God,
I am heartily sorry for
having offended Thee,
and I detest all my sins,
because I dread the loss of heaven,
and the pains of hell;
but most of all because
they offend Thee, my God,
Who are all good and
deserving of all my love.
I firmly resolve,
with the help of Thy grace,
to confess my sins,
to do penance,
and to amend my life.
Amen.
I found it at http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/prayers/contrit.htm
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.