• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The Biblical Basis of 10 Catholic Distinctives

OldAbramBrown

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2023
857
148
70
England
✟31,618.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Relics have had no basis in spirituality for a very long time now.

Transubstantiation is a blasphemy against Real Presence because Jesus wouldn't make bread vanish, He would be alongside it, and then only when believers respect each other's Holy Spirit gifts. I note your thread title names "Catholic" and not "Roman".
 
Upvote 0

OldAbramBrown

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2023
857
148
70
England
✟31,618.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Catholics' view of justification used to be the same as everybody else's but both catholics and protestants have lost the plot for centuries due to loss of Holy Spirit belief.

Bring back purgatory only without the "temporal" concept (which is too different outside this life). Some (far from all) Scriptures are ambiguous as between purgatory and heaven, or purgatory and hell.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,640
7,618
North Carolina
✟358,352.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Berserk has gone berserk. See his new thread trying to show inconsistencies in the resurrection accounts: "no hope of resolving" and at the same time "exposing our inability to resolve them.
See my brief reply without spending much time on him is at his new thread. Do you agree with Berserk?
Of course not, it's nonsense, not to mention irrelevant.

All is reconcilable.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

OldAbramBrown

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2023
857
148
70
England
✟31,618.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Educated young people are jumping out of the windows to escape fundamentalist churches that teach imagery of God akin to a bad cartoon 1
I am actually helping His church by restoring the needed mystery and dignity to spiritual dimensions and truths 2 ...
yes I agree with ( 1 ) but you are muddling some issues up in another way, creating mystique inappropriately ( 2 ) and claiming to disagree with people you ought to be agreeing with. We are already part of the solution and hoped you were joining us.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,995
8,468
50
The Wild West
✟786,310.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
According to the apostle Paul, the born again who are absent from the body are present with the Lord (Php 1:20-24).

Indeed, that is a substantial part of my argument.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,995
8,468
50
The Wild West
✟786,310.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Berserk has gone berserk. See his new thread trying to show inconsistencies in the resurrection accounts: "no hope of resolving" and at the same time "exposing our inability to resolve them.


See my brief reply without spending much time on him is at his new thread. Do you agree with Berserk?

In a word, no.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,995
8,468
50
The Wild West
✟786,310.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Transubstantiation is a blasphemy against Real Presence because Jesus wouldn't make bread vanish, He would be alongside it, and then only when believers respect each other's Holy Spirit gifts. I note your thread title names "Catholic" and not "Roman".

Says who? Our Lord didn’t say any of that. Who are you to accuse Roman Catholics of blasphemy?
 
Upvote 0

OldAbramBrown

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2023
857
148
70
England
✟31,618.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Says who? Our Lord didn’t say any of that. Who are you to accuse Roman Catholics of blasphemy?
I was only applying the logic of substance. It's up to catholics in free conscience how they apply their understanding of Real Presence.

Indeed for many, who have had genuine belief in Real Presence, their participating in the consecration and consuming of elements, as well as "spiritual communions" in parallel, is a genuine sourc e of sustenance, as I've seen close up (and having understood what I've seen).

To my view it's about the meanings in true and not false horizontality (affirm those ordinary people whom Christ affirms and not an organisation). I'm a fan of liturgy myself, as common but not organisational instrument.

I was trying to help get the OP's thread out of its doldrums. We were up to point 2 of the 10 I think, but we had lost any sense of whether we were proceeeding or not.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,995
8,468
50
The Wild West
✟786,310.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I was only applying the logic of substance. It's up to catholics in free conscience how they apply their understanding of Real Presence.

Indeed for many, who have had genuine belief in Real Presence, their participating in the consecration and consuming of elements, as well as "spiritual communions" in parallel, is a genuine sourc e of sustenance, as I've seen close up (and having understood what I've seen).

To my view it's about the meanings in true and not false horizontality (affirm those ordinary people whom Christ affirms and not an organisation). I'm a fan of liturgy myself, as common but not organisational instrument.

I was trying to help get the OP's thread out of its doldrums. We were up to point 2 of the 10 I think, but we had lost any sense of whether we were proceeeding or not.

“The logic of substance”? My only criticism of transubstantiation is that it follows Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents, and in my opinion, saying the substance changes while the accidents remain the same is insufficient to explain Eucharistic miracles which have occurred with some frequency, where the actual body and blood of our Lord has been perceived for what it really is in some form or another, which makes me feel that, if we must be burdened by the obsolete philosophical categories of Aristotle, which are in this area not consistent with modern society but rather merely an artificial metaphysical construct that is not required to understand God’s creation (although it is not as superfluous as Plato’s theory of forms and ideals), then it is necessary to also say that transaccidentiation takes place, but is normally veiled for the comfort of those receiving communion, with the true nature only selectively visible. For this reason I prefer to throw out Aristotle, and by extension, parts of St. Thomas Aquinas, and replace “accidents” with perceptual attributes which are specific to each person who receives the Eucharist, and thus the perception of bread and wine can be ordinarily present and extraordinarily absent according to God’s economy of salvation. But even this is unnecessary; the Orthodox view that Christ is truly physically present, but this presence, it is a mystery that defies logical explanation, is the best argument I have seen concerning the Eucharist.

What the Roman Catholics clearly have right is that the body and blood are truly present, and the bread and wine remain only on a perceptual level (which is meant by accidents), albeit on a perceptual level that is subjective and depends on what God desires for the communicant.

And if this is blasphemy, something I positively reject, count me as a blasphemer and I will join my Roman Catholics and Orthodox and Lutheran friends and wear the accusation as a badge of honor.
 
Upvote 0

OldAbramBrown

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2023
857
148
70
England
✟31,618.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
“The logic of ... badge of honor.
In Eucharistic miracles I suppose breadness/wineness go into recession. I mentioned "organisational" for the purpose of brevity and tact. Aquinas and Bellarmine like Calvin and Arminius were politicians. The whole eucharist benefit depends on belief in unsplit loyalty. What Jesus stood for was the gifts in the least of his brethren. The attitude of many ordinary communicants over the centuries is in line with this. There seems to be a temporary lull in discussing the rest of the 10 points.
 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
2,330
1,492
Midwest
✟234,473.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
“The logic of substance”? My only criticism of transubstantiation is that it follows Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents, and in my opinion, saying the substance changes while the accidents remain the same is insufficient to explain Eucharistic miracles which have occurred with some frequency, where the actual body and blood of our Lord has been perceived for what it really is in some form or another, which makes me feel that, if we must be burdened by the obsolete philosophical categories of Aristotle, which are in this area not consistent with modern society but rather merely an artificial metaphysical construct that is not required to understand God’s creation (although it is not as superfluous as Plato’s theory of forms and ideals), then it is necessary to also say that transaccidentiation takes place, but is normally veiled for the comfort of those receiving communion, with the true nature only selectively visible. For this reason I prefer to throw out Aristotle, and by extension, parts of St. Thomas Aquinas, and replace “accidents” with perceptual attributes which are specific to each person who receives the Eucharist, and thus the perception of bread and wine can be ordinarily present and extraordinarily absent according to God’s economy of salvation. But even this is unnecessary; the Orthodox view that Christ is truly physically present, but this presence, it is a mystery that defies logical explanation, is the best argument I have seen concerning the Eucharist.

What the Roman Catholics clearly have right is that the body and blood are truly present, and the bread and wine remain only on a perceptual level (which is meant by accidents), albeit on a perceptual level that is subjective and depends on what God desires for the communicant.

And if this is blasphemy, something I positively reject, count me as a blasphemer and I will join my Roman Catholics and Orthodox and Lutheran friends and wear the accusation as a badge of honor.
I feel I should point out that the actual dogmatic declarations on transubstantiation in Catholicism, as far as I am aware, say absolutely nothing whatsoever about "accidents." Certain writers, Aquinas most notably, were fond of talking about substance and accidents, but that is not what the formal definitions use.

The Fourth Lateran Council (Canon 1) says "There is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us." There is nothing of substances or accidents here.

The later Council of Trent comes closer, but still doesn't fully embrace the Aristotelian concepts of substances and accidents. In session 3 canon 2, it refers to transubstantiation as "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, the species only of the bread and wine remaining, which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation." While referring to substance, it says nothing about accidents, instead using the term species.
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

I stand with Candice.
Nov 23, 2013
7,438
2,897
PA
✟338,261.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I feel I should point out that the actual dogmatic declarations on transubstantiation in Catholicism, as far as I am aware, say absolutely nothing whatsoever about "accidents." Certain writers, Aquinas most notably, were fond of talking about substance and accidents, but that is not what the formal definitions use.

The Fourth Lateran Council (Canon 1) says "There is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us." There is nothing of substances or accidents here.

The later Council of Trent comes closer, but still doesn't fully embrace the Aristotelian concepts of substances and accidents. In session 3 canon 2, it refers to transubstantiation as "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, the species only of the bread and wine remaining, which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation." While referring to substance, it says nothing about accidents, instead using the term species.
Trent:

TRANSUBSTANTIATION

But since Christ our Redeemer declared that to be truly His own body which He offered under the form of bread,[20] it has, therefore, always been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy council now declares it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a change is brought about of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood.[21] This change the holy Catholic Church properly and appropriately calls transubstantiation.

THE REAL PRESENCE OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IN THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

First of all, the holy council teaches and openly and plainly professes that after the consecration of bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really and substantially contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist under the appearance of those sensible things. For there is no repugnance in this that our Savior sits always at the right hand of the Father in heaven[3] according to the natural mode of existing, and yet is in many other places sacramentally present to us in His own substance by a manner of existence which, though we can scarcely express in words, yet with our understanding illumined by faith, we can conceive and ought most firmly to believe is possible to God.[4] For thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ and who treated of this most holy sacrament, have most openly professed that our Redeemer instituted this wonderful sacrament at the last supper, when, after blessing the bread and wine, He testified in clear and definite words that He gives them His own body and His own blood. Since these words, recorded by the holy Evangelists[5] and afterwards repeated by St. Paul,[6] embody that proper and clearest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers, it is a most contemptible action on the part of some contentious and wicked men to twist them into fictitious and imaginary tropes by which the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth,[7] recognizing with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting this most excellent favor of Christ, has detested as satanical these untruths devised by impious men.


Where is the word accidents?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,995
8,468
50
The Wild West
✟786,310.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Trent:

TRANSUBSTANTIATION

But since Christ our Redeemer declared that to be truly His own body which He offered under the form of bread,[20] it has, therefore, always been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy council now declares it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a change is brought about of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood.[21] This change the holy Catholic Church properly and appropriately calls transubstantiation.

THE REAL PRESENCE OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IN THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

First of all, the holy council teaches and openly and plainly professes that after the consecration of bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really and substantially contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist under the appearance of those sensible things. For there is no repugnance in this that our Savior sits always at the right hand of the Father in heaven[3] according to the natural mode of existing, and yet is in many other places sacramentally present to us in His own substance by a manner of existence which, though we can scarcely express in words, yet with our understanding illumined by faith, we can conceive and ought most firmly to believe is possible to God.[4] For thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ and who treated of this most holy sacrament, have most openly professed that our Redeemer instituted this wonderful sacrament at the last supper, when, after blessing the bread and wine, He testified in clear and definite words that He gives them His own body and His own blood. Since these words, recorded by the holy Evangelists[5] and afterwards repeated by St. Paul,[6] embody that proper and clearest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers, it is a most contemptible action on the part of some contentious and wicked men to twist them into fictitious and imaginary tropes by which the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth,[7] recognizing with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting this most excellent favor of Christ, has detested as satanical these untruths devised by impious men.


Where is the word accidents?

Well I agree with all of the above, so I guess my only issue is with Thomism.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,995
8,468
50
The Wild West
✟786,310.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The Fourth Lateran Council (Canon 1) says "There is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us." There is nothing of substances or accidents here.

Well that statement of the Fourth Lateran Council is entirely compatible with Holy Orthodoxy, so I have no qualms affirming that. I also believe transubstantiation happens in Catholic masses as well as Orthodox ones, and that RC priests are therefore able to confect the sacrament by offering what the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil calls a “bloodless and rational sacrifice” in persone Christi.
 
Upvote 0

OldAbramBrown

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2023
857
148
70
England
✟31,618.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I feel ... term species.
This is very good.

I would remark that it is not a question of "embracing" as if Aristotle needed discrediting - which he does not - but misapplying him.

The fact that Aquinism contradicts even Trent is a too little known one!

Therefore the real version of transubstantiation was consubstantiation all along!

Obviously in eucharistic miracles breadness and wineness go into recession: Christ has never been obliterating those things (which surely never convinced anyone).

Catholics undermined Aristotle which is why modern philosophers don't understand him.

When Leo XIII was persuaded to recommend "Aquinism" I think he meant the scholastic (which had a broad outlook) generally but there are always people who "co-write"! In fact there are two Aquinases - he's OK if he leaves religion and politics out of it. The scholastic was meant to cover theology as well as philosophy.
 
Upvote 0

OldAbramBrown

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2023
857
148
70
England
✟31,618.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Well I agree with all of the above, so I guess my only issue is with Thomism.
"Thomism" pretends to be philosophy, when it is wonky theology. But it leaves some philosophy (sound in a better context) in for plausibility.

Etienne Gilson who plugged methodical realism, knew the distinction and the hierarchy were at odds with him. He knew the real meanings in theology. The hierarchy has pretended to twist the philosophy while twisting the theology, then by their arguments have twisted the philosophy as well. We need to be sharp and Leo XIII wanted us to be sharp.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OldAbramBrown

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2023
857
148
70
England
✟31,618.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I gave away my two volume "God" (which mainly deals with everything else) by Garrigou-Lagrange (GL).

1 - I don't recall anything in it about Transubstantiation (but that might be because I was skipping such on purpose? ;-) )

2 - He examines Kant's antinomies very usefully. However, he does - in passing - appear to take them as counterarguments, while they are nothing more harmful than paradoxes!

GL probably had in mind the many false and self proclaimed "Kantians".

On the whole a good read if you've got the time and the space. As far as he goes, GL is no mystifier (like RC Sproul unfortunately is).
 
Upvote 0

Berserk

Newbie
Oct 15, 2011
409
160
✟72,307.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
5. PRIESTLY CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION
(5a) PRIESTLY CONFESSION
"
Confess your sins TO ONE ANOTHER...so that you may be healed (James 5:16)."

Most evangelicals imagine that once they get their ticket punched to Heaven, post-baptismal sin is a minor issue because it is automatically forgiven by virtue of God's grace. So they presumptuously cheapen God's grace by ignoring His command to regularly confess their sins not just to God, but to each other. If they confess their sins at all, they do so in a cursory, vague, and generalized manner like, "Lord, forgive me all my sins." Unlike Catholics, they are unwilling to do the hard work of discerning introspection to penetrate their defense mechanisms and unearth the hidden sins they actually need to confess. Thus, they make a mockery of repentance! By contrast, Catholics are willing to air their dirty linen by confessing embarrassing sins to a priest. This is important because of the need for confidentiality and the need for a mature and discerning listening ear who can offer constructive feedback. In a local restaurant some time ago, I overheard 2 Catholics who had just returned from confession. They were discussing a book their priest had given them about how to recognize unknown sins and sins of omission. I felt like I was in the presence of true saints.

In the 19th century, Methodists required weekly confession of sins to each other in class meetings. As a result, in 1870 Methodist spirituality was so powerful that 40% of all Americans were Methodist! Then around 1900, they were no longer willing to air their dirty linen and Methodism has endured a slow steady decline ever since.

(5a) PRIESTLY ABSOLUTION

Most evangelicals view forgiveness solely as a direct transaction between the confessing believer and God with no human mediation. So they freeze like Bambi in the headlights when confronted by Jesus' teaching that church leaders must play an active role in mediating divine forgiveness:

"Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained (John 20:23)."

Church leaders have the authority ("the keys of the kingdom of heaven") to determine who is entitled to enter the kingdom of heaven on the basis of who is and is not forgiven for their sins:

"I will give you [Peter!] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16:19)."

Of course, only God can ultimately forgive sins. So the believers' authority to either forgive sins or decline to do so is based on their correct discernment of the sincerity of the confessor's repentance and, as John 20:23 implies, the Holy Spirit imparts this discernment.

So why is regular Catholic confession and priestly absolution an upgrade over standard evangelical practice?
(1) First, because it takes biblical teaching seriously that evangelicals ignore.
(2) Second, because the need to confess sins to a priest and thus subject oneself to priestly discernment is a powerful incentive to do some serious introspection to uncover unknown or ignored sins and sins of omission. Without such monitoring, evangelicals tend to either ignore the need for regular confession of sins or to confess their sins to God in a rather hasty and cavalier manner. As Socrates famously said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."
 

Attachments

  • 1694972398956.gif
    1694972398956.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 27
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,747
6,135
Visit site
✟1,060,799.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Most evangelicals imagine that once they get their ticket punched to Heaven, post-baptismal sin is a minor issue because it is automatically forgiven by virtue of God's grace.

If they confess their sins at all, they do so in a cursory, vague, and generalized manner like, "Lord, forgive me all my sins."

I don't think the generalizations above help your case.

I do not, however, dispute that it says to confess sins to one another, and have done so, with the intent to pray for one another in areas of struggle and to reflect on specific sins in our lives, repent and confess. This was in same gender groups for that purpose.

Having served as a protestant pastor I also have prayed with those struggling, who repented and confessed.

I do not see a requirement to confess every sin to an overseer in Scripture. Though I do think that regular opportunities for believers to receive intercession and spiritual guidance from the shepherds entrusted to care for them, under the Chief Shepherd, or from fellow believers, are helpful.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Berserk

Newbie
Oct 15, 2011
409
160
✟72,307.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
I don't think the generalizations above help your case.
I do not, however, dispute that it says to confess sins to one another, and have done so, with the intent to pray for one another in areas of struggle and to reflect on specific sins in our lives, repent and confess. This was in same gender groups for that purpose.
Having served as a protestant pastor I also have prayed with those struggling, who repented and confessed.
True, there are exceptions to my generalizations. But I have served as a UMC pastor for several years and have served Bible studies and prayer groups. My remarks are based on those experiences. Though Pentecostal in spirituality, I have served as a Theology professor at a Franciscan university for several years. So I have been exposed to Catholic spirituality at its best.
I do not see a requirement to confess every sin to an overseer in Scripture. Though I do think that regular opportunities for believers to receive intercession and spiritual guidance from the shepherds entrusted to care for them, under the Chief Shepherd, or from fellow believers, are helpful.
If Christians obey the NT command to air their dirty linen to each other, then confidentiality of the listener is essential.
The Catholic requirement of confession to a priest is therefore a good safeguard against gossip, but I agree, not a divine requirement.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0