RCC rescinding the idea of Repentence?

Southsider071

Well-known member
Sort of looks that way, as the Pope laid down the law to Catholic priests who withhold absolution in the Sacrament of Confession.

Francis was rather angry and literally cussed them out from the pulpit, which tells me that priests were probably already instructed on this.

 
Sort of looks that way, as the Pope laid down the law to Catholic priests who withhold absolution in the Sacrament of Confession.

Francis was rather angry and literally cussed them out from the pulpit, which tells me that priests were probably already instructed on this.

First they would have to teach about biblical repentance and they don't. In fact, in some of their bibles I believe they have replaced the word with penance. I was taught that priests could withhold absolution from you, if they feel you weren't sorry for sinning.
 
Interesting from the article quoted in the op:

The Holy Father put aside a written speech, describing it as “boring”, and delivered an off-the-cuff address to seminarians from Barcelona, Spain, in which he frequently used foul language.

In his address, he ordered students for the priesthood “not to be clerical, to forgive everything”, adding that “if we see that there is no intention to repent, we must forgive all”.
 
Sort of looks that way, as the Pope laid down the law to Catholic priests who withhold absolution in the Sacrament of Confession.

Francis was rather angry and literally cussed them out from the pulpit, which tells me that priests were probably already instructed on this.

Well if he would read the Bible, even he would know that God alone can forgive sins. So it really matters not if some priests forgive or not. It means absolutely nothing what they say.
 
I push reply to Jason's post and it does not work. How did that happen.

But yep I went through the RCC system it wasn't taught, we have also seen evidence of it not being practiced that is why you have sexually immoral priests. The catechism also says one to recompense others when you harm them but not one of the child molesting priests did so.

I have integrity other posters have posted the changing of the word to penance in many threads. I didn't think I needed to do it again as the evidence has already been provide. More attacking me personally I am so used to the false witness by RCs.

Returning to the RCC would be returning to the pig sty and I would not do so.
 
Sort of looks that way, as the Pope laid down the law to Catholic priests who withhold absolution in the Sacrament of Confession.

Francis was rather angry and literally cussed them out from the pulpit, which tells me that priests were probably already instructed on this.

I think what Pope Francis is getting at is that priests cannot withhold absolution just because the penitent cannot promise never to commit the sin again. I think that is what he means.
 
Sort of looks that way, as the Pope laid down the law to Catholic priests who withhold absolution in the Sacrament of Confession.

Francis was rather angry and literally cussed them out from the pulpit, which tells me that priests were probably already instructed on this.

There are requirements for a valid confession.

One has to have contrition or be sorry for their sins. One has to have a purpose of amendment, that is a sincere desire to not commit the sins just confessed again. You also have to have completed the penance assigned to you by the priest at your last confession and the intention to perform the penance assigned at the present confession.

The priest always has the right to withhold absolution if he has reason to believe that one of these elements is missing. If for example, he has reason to believe that the penitent does not have contrition or a true intention to try to not commit the sins confessed again, he can withhold absolution.

There are also reserved sins which the priest CANNOT give absolution for, but has to refer to the bishop. These are usually serious sins that are also crimes. For example, if someone confessed a murder, the priest could not just give absolution and send the person away. Abortion was always a reserved sin as well.

Bergoglio, of course, shows an absolute contempt for the sacrament, and his use of foul vulgar language is nothing new. He obviously doesn't have any belief in the sacrament or the whole concept of sin, contrition, or penance. He is a humanist and a modernist.

Just don't use plastic straws and give an immigrant a sandwich and you'll be alright; and whatever you do, don't proselytize, because that's "pagan"!
 
You love to read things into his statements and aren't there.
Maybe, maybe not.

I think it manifestly absurd to believe that Pope Francis literally means---to give absolution to someone who isn't sorry for their sin. I get he is a Jesuit, but come on---even Jesuits aren't THAT stupid.

Thus, unless Pope Francis offers clarification that this is what he means, I say----give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
Maybe, maybe not.

I think it manifestly absurd to believe that Pope Francis literally means---to give absolution to someone who isn't sorry for their sin. I get he is a Jesuit, but come on---even Jesuits aren't THAT stupid.

Thus, unless Pope Francis offers clarification that this is what he means, I say----give him the benefit of the doubt.

It isn't a matter of being "stupid", but a question about being misguided, heretical or cultic.

Plenty of brilliant cultists out there you know.
 
It isn't a matter of being "stupid", but a question about being misguided, heretical or cultic.

Plenty of brilliant cultists out there you know.
Evidently the joke was missed on you.

The Jesuits were at one time were the Navy Seals of Catholicism. They were the intellectual powerhouses defending Catholicism.

Sadly, the Jesuits have largely abandoned their charism. The Jesuits now are notoriously liberal and dissident. It is more likely to see the Jesuits criticize Catholicism and otherwise attack the Faith, than defend it. Jesuit universities are Catholic in name only. They are more interested in being seen as prestigious universities than defending Catholicism and forming people in the Faith.

Jesuits now would ironically side with our Protestant critics. You know "Well, we now know that when Jesus told Peter that he was the rock that he never intended to found a papacy...." Don't get excited though--becasue they way they do this is through the use of the Historical Critical Method. This means---they not only tear down Catholicism--but your Faith as well.

In any case, Pope Francis is a Jesuit. This is why he is so liberal and often makes dubious statements about Catholicism. Thus, when I said "Even Jesuits aren't THAT stupid" it was in the above context. In other words---even Jesuits have to believe that someone actually has to be sorry for their sin in order to be absolved.
 
Evidently the joke was missed on you.

The Jesuits were at one time were the Navy Seals of Catholicism. They were the intellectual powerhouses defending Catholicism.

Sadly, the Jesuits have largely abandoned their charism. The Jesuits now are notoriously liberal and dissident. It is more likely to see the Jesuits criticize Catholicism and otherwise attack the Faith, than defend it. Jesuit universities are Catholic in name only. They are more interested in being seen as prestigious universities than defending Catholicism and forming people in the Faith.

Jesuits now would ironically side with our Protestant critics. You know "Well, we now know that when Jesus told Peter that he was the rock that he never intended to found a papacy...." Don't get excited though--becasue they way they do this is through the use of the Historical Critical Method. This means---they not only tear down Catholicism--but your Faith as well.

In any case, Pope Francis is a Jesuit. This is why he is so liberal and often makes dubious statements about Catholicism. Thus, when I said "Even Jesuits aren't THAT stupid" it was in the above context. In other words---even Jesuits have to believe that someone actually has to be sorry for their sin in order to be absolved.
I am sure the poster is feeling that RC love for neighbours.
 
I am sure the poster is feeling that RC love for neighbours.
Now we see why RCC is contra-Scriptura – it's so that they can ignore:
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor, and you shall have hatred for your enemy.’ But I say to you: Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. And pray for those who persecute and slander you.
"In this way, you shall be sons of your Father, who is in heaven." (Mat 5:43-45a CPDV)

But what are the implications of the second part ("In this way...")? What does it mean if you hate your enemies? Hmmm?

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
 
Back
Top