Bobbieaware Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 Yup. You are excommunicated (and a heretic to boot!) but you're still a Catholic and we still love you (Baptism leaves in an indelible mark on your soul... you're like a mademan in the mafia... you can never get out )Is it not somewhat the same in Islam? I'm sure you know that even if an individual born into Islam converts to a non-Islamic faith, and has zero remaining belief in the religion, as far as Islamic law is concerned that man is still a member of Islam and he has no say in the matter. Although I'm LDS, I'm wondering if it's possible to make a similar argument for someone born into the LDS Church? Regardless of the answer, one thing is for certain, there are a significant numbers of those who have left the LDS faith who, of their own volition, just can't seem to leave it alone. Some of these folks will come to discussion boards like this one and spend significant portions of their lives discussing Mormonism with members of the LDS Church. But in this instance, the continued association with the religion they left behind is purely voluntary.
Yirgacheffe Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 These people have no control over forgiveness, they only judge the church membership status.So yes, God might forgive a sin without speaking to any authority, but the person may still be excommunicatedBishops do not forgive sin nor can the absolve anyoneSimilar, but not the same imoWhy should they still be excommunicated then, and how can someone ever really be sure if they are forgiven if the church leaves them outside?
Yirgacheffe Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 Although I have found that a bishop will make specific demands on the returning, confessing saint, and will watch his behavior closely before acting on his requests. May take a long while before he is returned to full fellowship and given a temple recommend, if at all. Not punishment, but a form of penance nevertheless. This may be accompanied by denial of taking the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper (communion) for a time, even though that is a voluntary matter.Why is that not considered punishment, and to one of the Catholic posters how is it different than what happens to a Catholic who confesses some sin?
Yirgacheffe Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 Yes, good point,that nearly always happens as well.Another difference though is our disciplinary council system, which socializes the process. Though one makes the final decision, the bishop/SP shares the decision responsibilities. This adds another whole dynamic. Yet it is up to the bishop to decide if a council is to be held. Council decisions can be appealed as well.My point I think was more about absolution. We do not believe that a man can absolve sin, ever, even though the scriptures say otherwise.We do not believe that forgiveness of sin is a priesthood power to which we hold the keys. We would never say "I absolve you from your sins""We do not believe that a man can absolve sin, ever, even though the scriptures say otherwise." I've never heard anyone say this sooo I would like to know where scriptures say this??
Yirgacheffe Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 I go to Mass in El Paso, Tx. Jesus and Mary chapel. And yes, I remember now that we talked about Silver City. I love Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery. I've been there many times on retreat, so I'm sure I've met the brother of your son-in-law. They've been very welcoming of this strange long-haired VW bus driving hippie trying to be a traditional Catholic Also, I love Christ in the Desert Monastery. Not SSPX but very conservative. The abbot has visited Our Lady of Guadalupe (which, as you know, can be hard for some Catholics) and they sometimes celebrate the traditional Mass. I'll pray to Our Mother for you, if you do the same for me. This vale of tears is a hard path to tread, and I pray God's mercy on all of us. (ETA: New Mexico ain't a bad place for old school monasteries located way out in the beautiful wilderness... just check out the websites I've linked)You are the second long-haired, VW bus driving" Catholic person I've encountered, the first was the father of a young lady who worked where I did one summer.
saemo Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 "We do not believe that a man can absolve sin, ever, even though the scriptures say otherwise." I've never heard anyone say this sooo I would like to know where scriptures say this??John 2019 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.21 [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
mfbukowski Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) Why should they still be excommunicated then, and how can someone ever really be sure if they are forgiven if the church leaves them outside?The person sins.The person repents and God forgives them.The person never goes back to church to be reinstated.The point was that being forgiven is not dependent on status in the church.The only way of knowing you have been forgiven is God speaking to your heart, not some authority telling you Edited November 1, 2015 by mfbukowski
saemo Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 Why is that not considered punishment, and to one of the Catholic posters how is it different than what happens to a Catholic who confesses some sin?Penance is not meant as punishment. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is for repentance, and the penitent is forgiven.A priest may or may not assign a penance. When he does it is meant to bring the penitent closer to God, which is why prayer is a common penance. Others might be aligned to what the priest discerns the person needs to heal. An example might be, someone who was cruel in anger could be given the penance to apologize to the person they offended.
mfbukowski Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 John 2019 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.21 [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”See? I did study my Catechism!
saemo Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) See? I did study my Catechism!Of course. But I was thinking in the LDS idea of restoration and keys being restored....you think there's this one missing? Edited November 1, 2015 by saemo
saemo Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 Helpful, thanks.This is what was rolling around in my head confusing me:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiaeSince I am now a heretic, I guess I am goe anywayIt is never hopeless. Our hope is in Christ. The motions for reconciliation are simple on paper, just go to Confession. Even Martin Luther had that open to him until his death. Not so easy in practice, for a lot of people.
mfbukowski Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 Of course. But I was thinking in the LDS idea of restoration and keys being restored....you think there's this one missing?D&C 132: 45.Guess I was wrong!
saemo Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) I guess the mark is so God doesn't forget? The Sacraments are for our benefit, not God's.Yes I remember that from Catechism. 10 years of pre-Vatican II pagan babies bouncing around in my brain. I bought a bunch! Limbo, Purgatory, bleeding hosts,nuns with yard sticks,etc.Oh well we have polygamy and the curse of Cain, and the evils of evolution. The world is changing.Pagan babies? Lol.Limbo, purgatory, Eucharistic miracles, teachers having the perogative to discipline their students....I don't find those are comparable to polygamy or generational curses.As it is, I have an overall impression that many of our youth are fragile flowers that are offended at any slight to their delicate constitutions. Maybe some could have benefited from a nun with a yardstick, to snap them out of their narcissism. Edited November 1, 2015 by saemo 1
Yirgacheffe Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 The person sins.The person repents and God forgives them.The person never goes back to church to be reinstated.The point was that being forgiven is not dependent on status in the church.The only way of knowing you have been forgiven is God speaking to your heart, not some authority telling youThen why should the church leave you out?
Yirgacheffe Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 John 2019 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.21 [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”Thanks, seems that could be a point of contention, I'll have to remember that as a means of deflection
Yirgacheffe Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) Penance is not meant as punishment. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is for repentance, and the penitent is forgiven.A priest may or may not assign a penance. When he does it is meant to bring the penitent closer to God, which is why prayer is a common penance. Others might be aligned to what the priest discerns the person needs to heal. An example might be, someone who was cruel in anger could be given the penance to apologize to the person they offended.Isn't that the same thing that was said about repentance and telling the bishop from a Mormon perspective? Added in edit. Maybe an LDS could answer too, from my point of view it looks the same. Neither views it as punishment and both see it as getting you closer to God, so how is it different other than Catholics get to know they are forgiven from an authority and LDS don't? Edited November 1, 2015 by Yirgacheffe
saemo Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) Isn't that the same thing that was said about repentance and telling the bishop from a Mormon perspective?Added in edit.Maybe an LDS could answer too, from my point of view it looks the same. Neither views it as punishment and both see it as getting you closer to God, so how is it different other than Catholics get to know they are forgiven from an authority and LDS don't?My opinion is, both perceive the same result. Both view the other as lacking in authority.The differences are, a Catholic goes to confession, it's done. The sin is forgiven and forgotten (absolved). I don't see that the forgotten part is held by Mormons. There is no follow up instigated by a priest, unless the confessor has asked for specific assistance. So when a penance is assigned, it is up to the confessor to do it. The priest isn't going to track anyone's penance. It's pretty much understood that confession is a healing sacrament, and those who voluntarily show up are seeking the healing of Jesus Christ, and thus penance is viewed as a part of the healing, so it wouldn't make any sense to skip it. A person can confess anonymously, behind a screen, at any church, to any priest. It is viewed as between the confessor and God, with the priest acting in the Person of Christ. It is not the priest that forgives and absolves the sin, it is Jesus. The confession is absolutely private, and the priest can't even hint at what a person has confessed. One of our priests once explained, that he was at a retreat for priests, and one of their discussions was about the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Where one of the priests described the penance he assigns for a particular sin. Well, the other priests pointed out, he wasn't going to be doing that anymore, because if any of the priests who were there saw a person doing the described penance, they would know what they had confessed. (The penance was doing the Stations of the Cross. It's very obvious when someone is doing this,)With a uniform penance for LDS, everyone knows what has been confessed. Maybe not the details, but they know that guy, or that girl, did something found on a very short list. Not possible with a Catholic confession. People only know what a confessor shares voluntarily with non-clergy,I know LDS say they have the same idea, but I don't see that it is strictly followed. A priest faces grave consequences if he breaks the seal of confession. For LDS, it's just, oh well, hope we get a bishop someday that can be more discreet. Edited November 1, 2015 by saemo
Calm Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 "With a uniform penance for LDS, everyone knows what has been confessed. Maybe not the details, but they know that guy, or that girl, did something found on a very short list." What uniform penance are you talking about?
Robert F. Smith Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) ................................................... With a uniform penance for LDS, everyone knows what has been confessed. Maybe not the details, but they know that guy, or that girl, did something found on a very short list. Not possible with a Catholic confession. People only know what a confessor shares voluntarily with non-clergy,I know LDS say they have the same idea, but I don't see that it is strictly followed. A priest faces grave consequences if he breaks the seal of confession. For LDS, it's just, oh well, hope we get a bishop someday that can be more discreet.I cannot agree. LDS bishops and stake presidents are trained not to break the confidentiality of the confessional, and their wives know not to ask them. Those who are not discreet are subject to Church discipline, and also subject to civil penalties in a court of law -- the same way a doctor or lawyer may not ever speak of confidential, private matters of their patients or clients. This is a matter of statutory, secular law, and not simply a religious rule. Breach of secular law has cost both the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches $millions in penalties in recent decades, most of that for failure of those churches to exercise due diligence in the face of child molestations. It may be true that, when a Mormon doesn't take the sacramental emblems, people may assume that something is going on, but they do not actually know what the problem is. In fact, many Mormons are at that point simply doing a private penance for something they perceive as inappropriate, and not requiring confession. They are also likely to add fasting, prayer, and some quiet meditation at the temple grounds. Those who have good manners do not take notice of whether their neighbor is taking the emblems during sacrament meeting. Edited November 1, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 2
mfbukowski Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 Then why should the church leave you out?In the hypothetical situation which to my knowledge has never happened, the person left themselves out. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.Hypothetical. Never happened.
saemo Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) I cannot agree. LDS bishops and stake presidents are trained not to break the confidentiality of the confessional, and their wives know not to ask them. Those who are not discreet are subject to Church discipline, and also subject to civil penalties in a court of law -- the same way a doctor or lawyer may not ever speak of confidential, private matters of their patients or clients. This is a matter of statutory, secular law, and not simply a religious rule. Breach of secular law has cost both the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches $millions in penalties in recent decades, most of that for failure of those churches to exercise due diligence in the face of child molestations.It may be true that, when a Mormon doesn't take the sacramental emblems, people may assume that something is going on, but they do not actually know what the problem is. In fact, many Mormons are at that point simply doing a private penance for something they perceive as inappropriate, and not requiring confession. They are also likely to add fasting, prayer, and some quiet meditation at the temple grounds. Those who have good manners do not take notice of whether their neighbor is taking the emblems during sacrament meeting.Ok, thanks. No, a priest cannot break the seal of confession, not even when a crime is confessed. He can report what he knows or observes outside of the confessional. What some Bishops did, was hear complaints from people outside of the confessional, which would be the opportunity to report a crime. But instead, favored protecting the criminal priest over the victim.The seal of confession is not a rule, it is Canon Law. Edited November 1, 2015 by saemo
saemo Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 "With a uniform penance for LDS, everyone knows what has been confessed. Maybe not the details, but they know that guy, or that girl, did something found on a very short list." What uniform penance are you talking about?Excommunication, ultimately. Not taking the sacrament more specifically. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 ..........................................................The seal of confession is not a rule, it is Canon Law.It is Canon Law (a rule) within Roman Catholicism, but is also a rule within virtually all religions in the United States. However, it is also a right protected by secular American law -- so that both clergy and penitent are protected by secular law.
saemo Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 It is Canon Law (a rule) within Roman Catholicism, but is also a rule within virtually all religions in the United States. However, it is also a right protected by secular American law -- so that both clergy and penitent are protected by secular law.Yes, but there is a difference between rules and laws.
Tony Frank Posted November 2, 2015 Author Posted November 2, 2015 Sure. But Tony essentially criticized the Catholic process of confession and penance or repentance when the LDS and Catholic processes are not all that different. The Catholic process of confession is you go to a priest on a regular basis and confess all your sins. "Bless me father for I have sinned. My last confession was ___ ago." Nowhere does Catholicism teach that people need to confess their sins to God, which is what repentance is. They gave repentance a new name, "penance," and said that Catholics must confess their sins to a priest.
Recommended Posts