“On the hundredth time a person comes to her to confess the same sin, he never thinks that maybe there is “sucking” a little?». Over the centuries, sacramental confession has undergone radical changes that many are unaware of, specie i “great doctors theologians” of Facebook and Twitter

- Church news -

"ON THE HUNDRED TIME THAT A PERSON COMES TO HER TO CONFESS THE SAME SIN, DO NOT THINK THAT MAYBE THERE IS “PACIFIER” A LITTLE?». OVER THE COURSE OF CENTURIES THE SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION HAS SUBJECTED RADICAL CHANGES THAT MANY IGNORE, SPECIES THE GREAT “DOCTORS THEOLOGISTS” OF FACEBOOK And TWITTER

.

Thanks to Social media a lot of, grouped in dense legions of increasingly aggressive imbeciles, but above all far worse than the biblical invasion of locusts, they usually self-form in this way: first pick from a blog other, then they try their hand at using lemmas whose etymological meaning they do not even know - but above all the meaning they have in philosophical language, metaphysical and theological-dogmatic -, finally they get on the chair of Facebook or Twitter to give lessons of correct doctrine to us theologians, shooting bullshit in bursts one after the other with incredible violence and aggression. And not always, unfortunately, you can laugh at the nonsense of these internetici theologians.

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi Gualdo

.

.

PDF format Print article

 

.

.

.

.

Capuchin friar confessor (photo by Aldo Lancioni)

(C)on the question he posed, a Reader inspired me this article which could be useful to many people:

.

«It is true that Christ condemns sin and not the sinner. It is true that the sinner is to be forgiven seventy times seven, therefore always. But on the hundredth time that a person comes to her to confess the same sin, she never thinks that maybe she is "sucking" us a little? The first Christian communities if I remember correctly is not that I was going to read in the judgment on the sinner and, after sin, contrition of heart was not enough and before being readmitted into the community he had to pass under the public caudine gallows. Probably my feelings of guilt arise from here ... masochism? But it seems to me that even in the apostolic canons they speak of this path ".

Gianbattista, 11 July 2021

.

This question offers the opportunity to do some sacramental dogmatics, subject to which I have devoted myself a lot together with the history of dogma. But first a premise, just to escape a little in a goliardic way from the summer heat that envelops us in the middle of this month of July, which is a way in which I often introduce particularly serious themes. In the sad and confused times we are living in, we priests and theologians have to deal with the reality of "Catholics" ranging from magical-aesthetic to the most sinister and vulgar fideism. Thanks to Social media a lot of, grouped in dense legions of increasingly aggressive imbeciles, but above all far worse than the biblical invasion of locusts, they usually self-form in this way: first pick from a blog other, then they try their hand at using lemmas whose etymological meaning they do not even know - but above all the meaning they have in philosophical language, metaphysical and theological-dogmatic -, finally they get on the chair of Facebook or Twitter to give lessons of correct doctrine to us theologians, shooting bullshit in bursts one after the other with incredible violence and aggression. And not always, unfortunately, you can laugh at the nonsense of these internetici theologians. Sometimes yes, others do not.

.

Here is a typical example of sinister and vulgar fideism based on the magical-aesthetic, of the series ... abracadabra the magic is done! One girl scolded me by writing on my page Facebook that "the prayers recited in Latin are very powerful and the Devil just can't stand them", because he is terrified of it.

.

For pedagogy, above all out of authentic Christian charity, such people cannot be taken seriously, He should be taken for a ride. What else could be done with subjects who from their professorships erected on social media they think they can speak of the mystery of divine grace, of the sacramental - which is the most complex branch of dogmatic theology - and of the discipline of the sacraments, with the slight ease with which one can discuss with the shamist in the hairdresser's room about the latest tabloid article published on Novella2000?

.

Then you understand that at that point, the ass-kicking aimed at these people is the most appropriate and most pedagogical act of exercising authentic Christian charity. And then, if they call you a "vulgar priest" for saying the little word they say wrong, type bullshit the jack ass, the problem is theirs, because if there is one thing that makes it really vulgar, this is precisely the presumption of the ignorant, aggressive and violent, convinced that he knows and can teach, or if we prefermetaphysical imbecile, who, in addition to presuming to know, also presumes to give lessons to long-time theologians. Thus reached the extremes to which these people are capable of reaching, tell them if necessary "stop, because you really broke everyone's balls: in the heavens, on earth and under the earth ", it is nothing more than a pedagogical due act. What is not serious and which turns out to be so grotesque and unscientific, anti-doctrinal and anti-theological, it must be deprived of value. And the most effective weapon is precisely made up of irony and a wise and charitable ass-kicking.

.

For this, to that Lady which almost certainly would not be able to translate even the first very simple lines of the De bello Gallico but who invokes this "magical language" to terrorize the Devil, I replied that when we celebrate the Eucharistic Sacrifice in Italian, or when instead of saying the Lord be with you we say The Lord be with you, the Devil is lost in laughter, not feeling struck by the magical Latin that instead knocks him down instantly frightened and stunned.

.

This complex premise is partly the result of summer heat and partly with a goliardic spirit to say that, when I have been asked intelligent questions such as the one sent by this Reader of ours, it is as if I received a free gift:

.

"On the hundredth time that a person comes to her to confess the same sin, she never thinks that maybe she is" sucking "us a little?».

.

Relevant question, because precisely in these cases one can see how much a wise confessor is and enlightened by God's grace. First of all it must be taken into account that Christ, divine cornerstone, he chose Peter for the building and government of his Church (cf.. Mt 13, 16-20). And of all the Apostles, Peter was the most fragile and haughty, as he repeatedly demonstrated, at the same time even the most cowardly. If necessary, he was confused, indecisive and ambiguous in matters of doctrine. He was a naive Galilean fisherman, passionate and deeply good that he remained so throughout his life. He did not shine for intelligence, least of all for culture. Suffice it to recall how it was made black in Antioch by the Blessed Apostle Paul, albeit with all due respect for his primacy as Head of the College of Apostles. And now let us retrace the story of Antioch narrated by the Apostle himself:

.

«But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him openly because he was wrong. Indeed, before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles:; but, after their coming, he withdrew and separated himself, for fear of the circumcision. And the other Jews did the same in the simulation, so much so that even Barnabas allowed himself to be drawn into their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not behaving righteously according to the truth of the gospel, said to Peter before all: "Be yourself, being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not in the manner of the Jews, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”. We, that by birth we are Jews and not pagan sinners, knowing however that man is not justified by the works of the Law but only by faith in Jesus Christ, we too believed in Christ Jesus to be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; for by the works of the Law no one will ever be justified. If therefore we who seek justification in Christ are found sinners like others, Christ is perhaps a minister of sin? Impossible! In fact, if I go back to building what I destroyed, I denounce myself as a transgressor. Actually by the Law I died to the Law, so that I live for God. I was crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. And this life, that I live in the body, I live it in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me. Therefore I am not making the grace of God in vain; indeed, if the justification comes from the Law, Christ died in vain "" (Maybe 2, 11-21).

.

In this debate that took place in Antioch, the Blessed Apostle Paul enunciates the theology and doctrine of grace and justification. Exactly what a German Augustinian friar famously donkey misunderstood, I think he was called Martin Luther, forge of enormous damage produced in the Church around the sixteenth century, with all due respect to a certain Catholic flattery which today indicates him as a "reformer" and who calls his schismatic heresy "reform". Among other things, it came from a historic Order that takes its name from St. Augustine who was the author of De natura et gratia, let alone the worst damage he could have done if he had been a Benedictine Miss, like the numerous that populate the abbeys and monasteries of our times, in which male testosterone seems to be an increasingly rare commodity.

.

Always remaining in the order of hyperbolic examples: if a conclave had been held after the death of Jesus Christ, how many Peter would have voted and how many Paul? What a profound difference there was between Peter, Giacomo the Greater and his brother Giovanni, indicated by Christ God with the Aramaic name of "sons of thunder" - boanèrghes ―, then reported in Greek characters as βοανηργες (cf.. MC 3, 16-18). If we compare Peter with figures of apostles such as John or Paul, the difference will look roughly like the one that could run between Alvaro Vitali and Marcello Mastroianni, between Roberto Benigni and Gregory Peck. Yet Christ chose him who embodied all our human frailties, giving it the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and untie (cf.. Mt 16, 13-19), all despite having had much better elements from which to choose the Head of the College of Apostles. Then try to ask yourself: because he chose Peter and not others?

.

It is not an Angel of God who absolves sins, as to lead the Church of Christ is not a host of Cherubim and Seraphim, but of priests, of another Christ acting in Persona Christi and that they can often be worse sinners than the one to whom they grant grace and divine forgiveness through sacramental absolution: "Whom you forgive sins will be forgiven ..." (GV 20, 22-23).

.

Theology, sacramental dogmatics in a particular way, it cannot be separated from the history of dogma, because in the course of two thousand years the discipline of the sacraments has undergone sometimes radical changes, fruit of a long gestation understood as the acquisition of the perception of the Sacrament and of the Sacraments in themselves. Or perhaps someone thinks that the first Christians had the perception of the Holy Eucharist that we have today? Or that they display the Blessed Sacrament inside the monstrance for Eucharistic adoration, practice of sacred devotion to the Most Holy Body of Christ which will come to life only about 1300 years after the death and resurrection of the Word of God? What prayer books did the first Christians use in the apostolic age and with which Missal they celebrated Holy Mass, or if we prefer what some ridiculous contemporaries call ... the Mass of All Time? The early Christians perhaps recited prayers to the Blessed Virgin Mary? The Twelve Apostles gathered together sang Salve Regina in Gregorian in the presence of the Mater Dei to honor her while she was staying in Ephesus or Jerusalem? They venerated the relics of the Saints? They went on pilgrimage to the sanctuaries where indulgence could be gained, or perhaps they crowded the hill of Medjugorje where in complete travel package conversion is also guaranteed, besides - of course - the assured apparition of the Madonna? Or maybe, after the February Edict of Milan 313, the Christians screamed, invaded neocatechumenal style: … «We have been recognized and approved… approved! You cannot therefore tell us and do nothing about it: we have been approved! Whoever is against us is against the august emperors Constantine and Licinius who approved us … approved!»? And always after this edict, the Christians were perhaps given the ancient basilicas of the romanitas with a place of honor in the ancient Senate reserved for the Bishop of Rome? I honestly would like to know what science fiction movies some people have seen, it would be interesting to know at least the title.

.

Simply said,: a sinner could commit that particular sin even once every 48 hours, then going to ask for God's grace and forgiveness. Obviously as long as he is repentant and a “victim” of fragility and weaknesses that he cannot manage and overcome at the moment. It is quite another matter if the sinner continuously commits the same sin because of indolence, laziness or selfishness wants to be weak and fragile and does not intend in any way to react to those weaknesses and frailties to which it could instead react, or worse because convinced ".... Oh well, then I'll go to confession ". In that case, for the good of the penitent, absolution can even be denied. However, I can guarantee that it is difficult for people of this kind - I would say almost impossible - to go back and forth to the confessional to ask forgiveness for the same sin..

.

The reader kept asking in his message:

.

«The first Christian communities, if I remember correctly, it is not that I went so read in the judgment on the sinner and, after sin, contrition of heart was not enough and before being readmitted into the community he had to pass under the public caudine forks ".

.

It's true, but we are at the very beginning of the Christian experience, in an era in which many were not yet clear what truly great had happened for all humanity from Calvary to the empty tomb of Christ risen and then ascended to heaven. The currents of the first Christians were different, two are the main ones: the Judeo-Jesuits, that is, the Jews who had chosen to follow the message of Christ and who were very affected by Jewish culture and rabbinic law, in particular of the Pharisaic one, from whose stock the Apostle Paul himself came (cf.. At 23, 6), and the converted pagans belonging to the Greek and Latin populations. As evidenced by the "incident" of Antioch between the Apostles Peter and Paul, the exchanges between the circumcised and the uncircumcised were very intense. And with all the confusion that often followed it was debated whether Christians should continue with the ritual practice of circumcision. Many understood the Eucharist as a celebration of Pesach (Passover) which instead of once a year was celebrated once a week. Finally, it would be enough to remember that from then on it would take almost four centuries and two great dogmatic councils to define first 325, then in Constantinople in 381, the mystery of the person and nature of Christ. And since there were not even lexical terms to define it, the Fathers of the Church were forced to borrow terminologies from the Greek philosophical lexicon and modulate them to give a definition to this ineffable mystery.

.

At the beginning I referred to the “doctors of sacramental theology” specialized at the academy of Facebook and Twitter - about which I refer to the book of the Fathers of The Island of Patmos: The Church and the coronavirus - those to be fooled for the imperative of conscience and above all for Christian charity, ready to launch into topics for which often, if not almost usual, sixty-year-old presbyters with thirty years of priestly ministry behind them, before opening their mouths they ask some theologian confrere for explanations, if anything, twenty years younger than them, before going into some very complex disquisitions on the theological level, which consequently involve equally complex issues on a historical level. Indeed, it is impossible to understand the discipline of the Sacraments if one does not know the history well and in depth.

.

It's true, the first Christian communities had a completely different conception of the forgiveness of sins, suffice it to say that the Sacrament of Penance could only be received once in a lifetime, after a penitential journey made under the guidance of the Bishop. Once the faithful received this sacrament, they could no longer sin, except at your own risk, because he could never receive it again. For seven centuries, absolution from sins was considered a "non-repeatable" sacrament. For this reason, Christians tried to receive absolution before dying, or in any case in old age. And many died without receiving it.

.

In these first centuries the complex problem of child. Latin term that literally means "slipped", used to indicate the Christians who during the persecutions of the third and fourth centuries burned incense to the pagan gods doing an act of adoration towards them. This is not out of conviction but because they are threatened with death, therefore only for fear of dying. Even before the case of child the discipline of the unrepeatability of penance was held firm. On the readmission of the child to the Community of believers the early Church found itself divided between the Cornelius current, elected Bishop of Rome in 251, inclined to forgiveness and their acceptance, and the followers of the Novatian presbyter who denied them any form of acceptance and who ended up excommunicated by the Roman synod. From him came the current known today as the Novatian heresy, who for some centuries continued to find followers. The theological battle waged against the Novatians by Ambrose, bishop of Mediolanum, is memorable, who at the end of the fourth century composed the of repentance, work divided into two books in which it is refuted: in the first, the theses of the followers of Novatian who considered mortal sins not forgivable and the need to proceed with a new baptism for the followers of their heretical sect; in the second he offers a learned dissertation on the concept of penance and the way in which it must be administered. Bishop Ambrose refutes the Novatians by reminding them that God's mercy offers all repentant sinners his grace. It reaffirms the analogical foundation between baptism and penance and finally reaffirms the unrepeatability of both these sacraments that generate a substantial transformation of life in anyone who repents for the sins committed and the evil that with them has been caused to others. The Novatians claimed to invite on the one hand to penance and repentance, on the other, however, they denied forgiveness, convinced of praising the Almighty with their rigor, but in fact despising God's grace and forgiveness through their blind hardness of heart. Let me now evaluate, to anyone who has read only a few rants of certain self-styled Internet theologians fai-da-te, if the Novatian one is not by chance one of the various returning heresies of our present time.

.

With the descent of the barbarians from Northern Europe - who shortly afterwards converted en masse to Christianity fascinated by the great and virile figures of certain Bishops and Fathers of the Church -, the hypothesis of making this sacrament repeatable to make the path of conversion and Christian life less impossible for these peoples began to be aired.. Hypothesis in front of which many Fathers of the Church and theologians of the time shouted heresy! Presumably, one of these, it would have been Ambrose himself, just mentioned, who three centuries earlier reaffirmed the unrepeatability of penance in one of his famous theological works.

.

Because with the converted barbarians the pastoral need arises to make the sacrament repeatable? Because beyond their good will, their habits and customs of life were what they were… well, we must be grateful to the barbarians if this sacrament became repeatable. Only in the seventh century was the private practice of Penance introduced, something that we owe to the Irish monks who lived at the time of San Colombano who founded the monastery of Bobbio at the beginning of the seventh century and who helped to restore life to the practice of this sacrament through a private dimension based on the expiation of sins. Thus, these monks, coming down from the regions of northern Europe to Italy they brought the sacramental habit of "confessing" their sins to a presbyter in such a way as to receive a penance, this paid penance. And here we must explain that for paid penance we mean the classification of the sins to which the penances to be imposed corresponded. This system introduced in the seventh century began to be practiced first in the monastic sphere, then among the people with subsequent great diffusion. We therefore owe the repeatability of this sacrament to the Irish Saint Columban and his monks, instead of being able to receive it once in a lifetime. We also owe him the secrecy of the penitential path instead of the public dimension.

.

In the two hundred years that followed between the eighth and ninth centuries, the Penitential Books they had a great diffusion and application. The rates enclosed within them consisted mainly of imposed fasts, which according to the gravity of the sin committed could sometimes last days, other times years. Disgrace wanted - because in fact it was -, that the Penitential Books contained within them commutations that allowed the sinner to commute his fast into expiatory works done by himself or even performed by third parties, all in exchange for money, celebrations of Holy Masses, land donations, construction of churches and monasteries in cases of particularly wealthy sinners. Then came the verge of ridicule, this just to remember with an aside that at a certain point in history, in that of Certaldo, Giovanni Boccaccio was born anything but by chance in the fourteenth century and that some of his short stories are anything but fanciful inventions. So I leave the reader to guess, without going into useless and shameful details, which abuses originated certain commutations and how many "holy" monks obtained the construction of great monasteries by selling the atonement for sins in concrete facts, while certain sovereigns and powerful feudal lords subjected to harsh penance came to pay their own faithful servant to do penance in their place (!?). There will also be a reason, if several councils of the Church severely condemned the vile sin of simony, whose etymology stems from the story of Simon Magus who tried to offer money to the Apostles to receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit through the imposition of their hands (cf.. At 8, 18-19).

.

Subsequently, the Sacrament of Penance will experience new developments and innovations between the ninth and tenth centuries with the Carolingian theologians beginning to focus attention from the atonement of sins to the accusation of sins, considering it the true heart of the entire penitential process. Without sincere repentance, there can be no forgiveness and atoning penance can risk being an end in itself.. Until reaching the Council of Trent which in 1563 establishes the norms of Confession with a specific decree, structuring the sacramental and canonical discipline of this sacrament as we know it today. In the post-Tridentine era, suitable spaces and places were also created for administering this Sacrament, for example, the penitentiaries inside the great cathedrals and basilicas, hence the use of confessionals created between the end of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th century to ensure confidentiality and separation between the confessor and the penitent and to encourage the confession itself. Nobody would be comfortable, to men and perhaps even more to women, accuse your sins to a man who sits in front of you and looks you in the face as you speak. It is worth mentioning that confessionals were invented by the Jesuits, precisely the same ones who between the end of the sixties and the seventies of the twentieth century were the first to remove them from many of their churches to put them in the basements, or by selling them to antique dealers, if anything, to give money to the poor, mind you! Indeed, the casuistic reason of the Jesuit, or it is always noble in and of itself, or in any case it becomes so through manipulation.

.

It is not true that the sinner "Before being readmitted to the community he had to pass under the public caudine forks". But some historians write it, many read it around and take such claims to be true and then spread them as such. It was not the confession of sins that was public, but the state of penitents, that yes it was made public. The penitents, almost always gathered in groups, they had to make a specific penitential path under the guidance of the Bishop, they certainly could not be kept hidden, but their sins yes, so much so that the Holy Pontiff Leo the Great, the long pontificate of which lasted from 440 to the 461, he prohibited public confession and declared it illegitimate and contrary to apostolic norms:

.

“We forbid that on this occasion a writing should be publicly read in which their sins are listed in detail. In fact, it is sufficient that the faults be manifested only to the Bishop, in a private interview " (Letter 168).

.

From all these historical notes it should be understood that the Sacrament of Penance, like other Sacraments, has undergone major mutations over time, at times truly radical. Always with all due respect to whoever speaks of Mass of All Time or doctrines, rules and disciplines always and absolutely immutable, with a lot of indisputable seal «it has always been done like this over the centuries!». Typical expression of the imbecile who usually ignores all of the mutations and events that have occurred over the centuries, because a past has been created that never existed, in order to make the present unreal.

.

I conclude with a touch of irony narrating when a mega-catechist de The Neocatechumenal sect he rattled kikian-carmeniano on the necessity of returning to the Church of the first apostolic origins. And here it is necessary to specify that the mega-catechist made the so-called scrutinies - that is to say that she investigated the consciences - not only of the laity, but even of the priests e, when their assemblies were held in the closed rooms, she talked and rambled heresies outright, while the priest present sat silently next to her, silent, ashamed of himself and of priestly dignity. At that point I quoted some passages from Sacred Scripture in which the Blessed Apostle Paul does not limit himself to exhorting, but he addresses real severe intimations:

.

"I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man; rather it be in silence " (The Tm 2, 12) "As in all churches of the saints, the women keep silent in the assemblies because it is not allowed to speak; but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If you want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, it is improper for a woman to speak in church " (The Cor 14, 34-35).

.

(D)before those clear passages, I told her that her job was to just keep quiet. And having said this, I asked her if she intended to return to the Church of the origins and apply certain commands and precepts to the letter, thus showing that he is truly yearning for the hoped-for return to origins. Not knowing what to answer, the poor ignoramus, paradigm of what mega-catechists actually are neokatekiki, he literally snapped stating: "Well, you always know, that Saint Paul was a misogynist ". Well, even if this is not the place, I think it is appropriate to briefly clarify that the Blessed Apostle, far from being a misogynist, he addressed these words to the inhabitants of Corinth, a basically matriarchal society in which women used to condition men with strong influences and pressures. But when they tried to do the same in the Christian community, trying to put their feet on the heads of bishops and presbyters, the Apostle called them to order. Therefore, the admonition "If they want to learn something, ask their husbands at home ", most likely it was aimed precisely at the wives of the first bishops and presbyters of that geographical area, it is clear from this other passage of the Epistle addressed to the disciple Timothy:

.

«[…] the bishop must be blameless, the husband of one time, sober, prudent, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not given to wine, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not attached to money. Know how to manage his family well and have submissive children with every dignity, because if one does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of the Church of God " (The Tm 3, 2-5).

.

The problem is that on the one hand we have more or less sectarian pseudo-Catholics which invoke the return to unknown origins and which instead constitute only a starting evolutionary nucleus to which it is certainly not desirable to return, because it would be like getting out of the car and going back to the time before the invention of the wheel. On the other hand, we have pseudo-Catholics of unspecified tradition who have built a past that never existed, convinced that the Blessed Apostle Peter celebrated the Mass of All Time dressed in solemn vestments with assistant presbyters dressed in copes and deacons dressed in damask baroque dalmatics. Of course celebrating - it goes without saying, needless to say! - in perfect and magical Latin, the one that scares and drives the Devil away, as that certain scientist wrote on my page Facebook. And certainly Simon, son of Jonah, known as Peter, was also called him “Holiness” the “Most Holy Father”. In fact, when the Roman soldiers arrested him on the Via Appia to take him to the Vatican Hill where he was crucified, they ordered him: «Altolà, Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, Your Holiness is under arrest!». And he was dragged towards the torture, giving at the end of his life the proof of the heroic nature of his virtues and dying by the grace of God the martyr.

.

It took Peter a lifetime to die a martyr, after running away several times, the last in series order shortly before his death, during Nero's persecutions, under the reign of which he ended up captured together with other fleeing Christians and ending up on the cross in what in the early Roman era was a wet and unhealthy marshy place outside the metropolitan urban core: the Vatican Hill. Name that some derive from Vagitano, a pagan divinity who protected newborn babies as they uttered their first cry. Others derive it from forecaster, which in Latin means "to predict", therefore linking it to the fact that in that area they practiced their profession of diviners already in the ancient Etruscan era. Whatever the true meaning of the word, it remains certain that the Vatican is a place where for love and respect for the faith ends up being put on the cross, in antiquity as in the contemporary world.

.

the Island of Patmos, 14 July 2021

.

.

.

Dear Readers,

about “radical homosexualists”, please read the article written by the president of our editions [WHO vedere], in which we ask for support for the fund of my court costs. I was made the subject of a lawsuit that, however unfounded, however, it requires me to proceed with my defense in court and therefore obliges me to spend money on legal fees. The logic is clear: hit one to frighten them and put a thousand of them to bed. This is why I trust so much in your precious help.

I thank those who have so far sent a contribution for the provision for court costs, and to whom I sent a message of thanks in private. Unfortunately,, to some, I could not answer instead, because along with their donation they did not send a message with their email. I thank them so much in these lines, sorry for not being able to send him a thank you message.

 

.

«You will know the truth and the truth will set you free» [GV 8,32],
but bring, spread and defend the truth not only of
risks but also the costs. Help us supporting this Island
with your offers through the secure Paypal system:









or you can use the bank account:

payable to Editions The island of Patmos

IBAN IT 74R0503403259000000301118
in this case, send us an email warning, because the bank
It does not provide your email and we could not send you a
thanksgiving [ isoladipatmos@gmail.com ]

.

.

.

.

.

About Padre Ariel

Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo Presbitero e Teologo ( Click on the name to read all its articles )

18 thoughts on "“On the hundredth time a person comes to her to confess the same sin, he never thinks that maybe there is “sucking” a little?». Over the centuries, sacramental confession has undergone radical changes that many are unaware of, specie i “great doctors theologians” of Facebook and Twitter

  1. I know that sacramental confession is valid even if the priest lives in sin or leads an immoral life, but everyone is looking for holy priests filled with the Holy Spirit. What's the reason ?

    1. more or less the same reason why all men want Monica Bellucci as a wife and all women Sean Connery as a husband, but, in concrete real life, often they had to settle for Tina Pica and Bombolo

  2. This article, like the others, brings the faithful down from the pedestal and brings him down to earth (me first).
    Speaking of confessions I would like to tell you this, one day a priest when a faithful in the confessional told him: father you always tell me the same things the father dear son changes sins and I change speeches(told by the priest)
    Father Ariel Levi Di Gualdo have a nice day and bless me.

  3. Reverend Father Ariel

    I would like to ask you when there is sacrilegious confession?when you fail to tell the priest a mortal sin?then at the moment of communion the priest can recall the Pauline warning 1 Corinthians 27 Therefore everyone who unworthily, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord, It will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Each, therefore, examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup; 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the Lord's body, he eats and drinks his own condemnation. or it is not expected ?Thank you

    1. Dear Fabio,

      when the penitent approaches the priest to celebrate the sacrament of Reconciliation – after having been received in the confessional according to the rite – the moment in which one's spiritual condition is manifested to the confessor begins. By spiritual condition we do not mean only the accusation of all and individual sins but also the manifestation of what the Lord is doing good in that soul. This is called acknowledgment of praise, which usually no penitent does before the priest, because we are often led to see the Sacrament of Reconciliation as a court in which a priest worse than us minds his own business and judges us. This unfortunately denotes a lack of faith in the Lord and a lack of knowledge of the Church's doctrine in sacramental matters.

      In front of the priest confessor, divine mercy is administered to us not only to forgive us the sins committed but also to experience that divine grace that makes us live well and allows us to prevent falls into sin.. We are there on our knees to ask for forgiveness it is true, but if there is a recognition of guilt there must be a recognition of grace and praise that opens our hearts to hope and trust. After acknowledgment of praise you get to He life that is, becoming aware of what is wrong in my life in relation to the person of God, of my brothers and myself. Having made this necessary premise, according to the teaching of the Church, the penitent in He life recognizes and confesses all mortal sins by defining them in number, species and circumstances, after having carried out a diligent examination of conscience which has the task of identifying even the most secret or hidden sins. The phase of the examination of conscience is fundamental and very delicate and must take up a lot of time for the penitent if you want to make a good confession, that is, a non-sacrilegious confession that mortifies and demeans what is being done. And’ it is necessary to say how many times we have fallen into sin: different is falling once or twice, than falling twenty times into the same kind of sin. Say the kind of sin: that is to know if it is a sin that has interested God, myself or my neighbor? To know if it is a sin that has affected the Christian life, sexuality, public or private relations, created things, the heritage, the feelings…etc. At last, say the circumstance that caused the sin or the context in which it occurred: it is different to confess to having stolen out of hunger than to have stolen out of envy or gluttony.

      If the penitent confesses in this way, to the best of his ability and remaining in an attitude of openness to the Holy Spirit in prayer and humility he undoubtedly makes a good confession. But if the penitent is hasty, pressapochista, he fails to voluntarily confess the sins that are more shameful to him or he does not confess those that – although they are mortal sins – they are not considered by him as such, runs the risk of falling into sacrilege. I'll explain, if the penitent does not consider it a grave sin not to go to Mass on Sunday and despite having sometimes failed to go there, he deliberately omits these shortcomings in his confession because they are sporadic, he's hurting his confession. The priest relies on the accusation of sins to exhort and help the penitent but can easily be deceived by him with malice or cunning by omitting sins, circumstances or important details. The responsibility of a good confession lies with the penitent who should know the Pauline warning you recalled and should get help from the priest to make a good confession. As for the priest at the moment of communion he cannot give any warning because that is not the moment. There are more opportune moments to exhort the faithful to this effect, such as catechesis or preaching. Indeed, the priest cannot even refuse to give communion to a sinner in public, unless this is a public sinner who blatantly and brazenly approaches communion as a gesture of defiance or derision. Or in the event that the state of one who approaches communion is incompatible with the reception of the sacrament, such as alcohol or drug alteration. However, the priest can do one thing, he can call the person aside and invite him, if he is aware of sufficiently serious and reasonable reasons, to avoid approaching communion.

      1. dear father Ivano,

        thank you for the answer you gave me, but I must tell you that the things that many priests have written, at least those of my acquaintance, have never told me, I knew some things because I read Father Bellon, she confesses with the confessional, he knows that in modern churches it is no longer used? And I don't see anyone going to confession, but they do communion all the same, then today, with the imposition of communion in hand, it is desacralized and one does not realize that the Blessed Sacrament is desecrated because fragments fall and this does not seem to interest priests much. Better once at the Latin Mass that I got to know with the summorum pontificum, once a priest refused me communion because he wanted to impose communion on my hand but before the pandemic, abuse today (pardon) it has become the rule because the CEI has imposed it and instead you could give it to the tongue with the pliers and the saucer and on your knees, but communion to the politicians who approved abortion and divorce because the church gives it to them?

        1. Dear Fabio,

          my answer is not my own flour but of the teaching of the Catholic Church which has been teaching these things since the Council of Trent. Lastly, just read the Introduction to the ritual of the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the Catechism of the Catholic Church – in the specific section dealing with the Sacraments – to find the things I said.

          As for the confessional, can. 964 of the Code of Canon Law establishes the proper seats and places for receiving the sacramental confessions of the faithful. §3 of the aforementioned can. 964 recommends that “confessions are not received outside the confessional, except for just cause”, this clarification can be easily understood in a particular context such as the pandemic one we are experiencing. For further information on the place dedicated to hearing confessions, the apostolic letter in the form of Motu Proprio John Paul II Mercy of the Gods al n.9.

          These things priests should know very well and – if not – the fault is to be found in two reasons: the crass ignorance in the sacred sciences and the liturgical imagination that rests on the priest's narcissism.

          About the way the S. Communion, I don't see any abuse, in the Catholic Church the possibility of receiving it in the mouth is currently prescribed – both standing and kneeling – but also on the palm of the hand according to the letter of John Paul II Dominicæ n. 11 of 24.02.1980.

          Clearly, regardless of how you receive the S. Communion, all the necessary precautions are necessary to make a devout communion, decorous, respectful and fervent. There is no need to bother the The old order to have the epidermal sensation of receiving + Communion or + Mass as if to mimic those people who want, want and vote + Europe.

          In the case of those politicians who are publicly and openly for abortion, for divorce and profess other realities decidedly in contrast with the Holy Gospel and with the Catholic Church – if you don't repent and confess – they cannot approach receiving the S.. Communion. Indeed, if they appear before the priest, the indications and answers I gave for the previous question are valid.

          1. In the case of those politicians who are publicly and openly for abortion, for divorce and profess other realities decidedly in contrast with the Holy Gospel and with the Catholic Church - if not repentant and confessed - they cannot approach receiving the S. Communion. Indeed, if they appear before the priest, the indications and answers I gave for the previous question are valid.( Father Ivano )

            ——-

            Fully agree.
            And what about the American bishops who rightly want to deny communion to politicians like Catholic Joe Biden (???!!!!) for abortion ( if I'm not mistaken pro abortion until 9 month… that is practically the possible killing of the child practically formed also physically) and of the Roman “Holy See” ( less and less Holy ... in these sad times ...) which sends in countertrend another type of signal not to deny the sacraments anyway ....
            And we poor faithful more or less ignorant of this what we have to think?
            Ditto for the German priests who bless gay couples by the hundreds ( a sin not only serious ... but that even somewhere it is written that he cries out for vengeance in the sight of God) and Holy Roman Church bypasses… with even a Holy Father who encourages Jesuit James Martin pro LGBT through a letter
            We poor ignorant faithful ( the 90% of Catholics ... ) what should we think ?
            1- that at the top of the Holy Roman church there is currently an antichristic imposture ( and then I understand ... including Pachamamma )
            2- or that the summit is legitimate .. and it is betraying Christ .... otherwise I don't understand ...

          2. The ( excellent and very precious) explanations on the confession given by Father Ivano I HAVE NEVER HEARD FROM ANY PRIEST IN MY LIFE .
            The confession is now much, much clearer to me .... I suspect that always the 90% of Catholics are in the same condition as me . Such an explanation should be posted in every confessional ....

  4. About the “commutations”, they also took hold in the court of the inquisition.
    Galileo is an example of this, sentenced to “formal prison”, discounted in the villa of Arcetri, and “for three years to come, say the seven penitential psalms once a week”, he had them recited in his place by his eldest daughter Sister Maria Celeste, to the century Virginia.

      1. How much your insights fill, father!
        If only he had a very small part of it in Sunday homilies… .that (it is with great shame that I confess it) I undertake to listen without being satisfied with it.
        I repeat, I am ashamed to say it because I understand for myself that we cannot expect to always have Cardinal Comastri before us, Mons. Cantalamessa (I respect them both very much) the Law p. Ariel, and because I'm sure every priest, even if too young, possesses some preciousness to donate. So I try to investigate inside myself to understand that I'm not really the one who is incapable “reader” of those messages, apparently simple, “off topic”, obvious.

        1. Cara Anna,

          you shouldn't be ashamed at all, it is we priests who should seriously question ourselves. During the homilies I heard everything, from heresies to telling jokes.
          In 2013 I published a collection of homilies which in a while’ for months we will print in second edition. In the back of the book – to reiterate precisely how much he should not be ashamed at all – I reported the sentences of two cardinals, one of which, Joseph Ratzinger, at that time prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the other, Cardinal Tomas Spidlik.

          Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger says:

          In «Feet, a confirmation of the faith gods, comes from the fact that every Sunday he survives a few million homilies "

          Says Cardinal Tomas Spidlik:

          "The Church has placed the Profession of Faith after the homily to urge us to believe despite what we have just heard".

  5. Very interesting, Thanks. What would you say, father, to collect in a book a series of articles on the sacraments like this one, understandable even to those like me who do not know anything?

    On going “a hundred times” for the same sin to confess that another reader wrote about, I believe that one cannot enter people's conscience as an accountant. A confessor explained it to me many years ago, the important thing is sincere repentance and the desire not to relapse, then everyone has their own frailties linked to their human condition.

    I confirm from experience all the nonsense imparted by the Neocatechumenal catechists, illustrated with lots of doodles. For them from Constantine to Vatican II it was only scorched earth, with all due respect to saints and doctors of the Church.
    And what about Carmen's contempt for confessionals, who called “casette”?
    O di Kiko, who believed that presence in the community was sufficient for the forgiveness of sins, eventually “Sealed, if you want it” tomorrow with a confession?

    What has always made me angry though, it is the silence of priests, bishops and cardinals. No one has ever opened their mouth to correct it.
    I remember a movie in which he boasts of exorcising entire cities and casting out demons in front of dozens of priests., and nobody says a half word. On the contrary, all there happy to clap their hands. Why Is That?

    About Latin antidiavolo, at school I hated Latin, it means that I am demon-possessed?
    I almost almost go from’Kiko exorcises to get me free…

    Thanks, to her and to all the fathers for the good you do to us.

  6. The historical reconstruction of the changes that occurred to the sacrament of reconciliation is absolutely flawless, it took me back to the years when I was studying at the institute of religious sciences. And despite the hot father Ariel still continues thanks to his proverbial rhetorical inventions to cut flesh and bone!

Comments are closed.