Praying Over Someone

[N/A Gone]

todd, c'mon. If not here, can you send me an email explaining? I am sure the mods will not mind. I should have proven that I can take care of myself by now.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1868669' date='May 16 2009, 01:00 PM']The only instance in the entire Bible of "to pray over" is found in the James 5:14-15 where the Sacrament of Extreme Unction was "recommended to the faithful and promulgated by James the Apostle and brother of the Lord." (Council of Trent, Denzinger 908)[/quote]
So you think nobody ever prayed over a sick person in the last 2000 years except a priest?

[RezaMikhaeil]

...to say that the charismatic "gifts" do not seek to replace the sacraments because the sacraments are for individual situations, where as the charismatic gifts are to "build up the church" as a previous person had suggested is ridiculous.

The charismatic movement itself, from what's written on their paper pamplets that they give out, to what is experienced at their churches don't even suggest that. "Personal Prayer Language", does that sound like something that is collectively meant to build up the church? Those that encourage such gifts even focus on it as an individual thing. I can't count the number of times that I'd heard people say, "you don't have your personal prayer language, lets pray for you", and the list goes on... suggesting that tongues can be for building up yourself is wrong, and even worse is to say that it can build up a non-believer, when nobody understands what is being said, not even the speak himself/herself.

Reza

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1869643' date='May 17 2009, 04:50 PM']So you think nobody ever prayed over a sick person in the last 2000 years except a priest?[/quote]
I am sure that many people have prayed [b]for[/b] a sick person, but if a layman tried to pray [b]over[/b] a sick person he was acting in opposition to Holy Tradition.

[picchick]

Do we not recieve the gifts of the Holy Spirit when we all recieve Confirmation?

[Resurrexi]

We actually receive them at Baptism, and they are strengthened at Confirmation, if I'm not mistaken.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Resurrexi

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1869618' date='May 17 2009, 06:51 PM']I reject the Charismatic movement because its theology is Protestant.[/quote]

As a Catholic of the Roman Rite, I must side with my former bishop, the late John Paul II, who fully approved of the charismatic movement, or at least that part of the movement which is genuinely Catholic and brought people into closer communion with the Catholic Church. It certainly had a significant role in my conversion, without my ever uttering a syllable in tongues or laughing/crying/passing out in the Spirit.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1869627' date='May 17 2009, 07:12 PM']Yes, we clearly disagree about the movement's true nature, although it is nice to see you admit that it is founded upon Protestant theological principles. That said, I see the emotional pseudo-spirituality of the movement as dangerous.[/quote]

Funny thing is... many charismatics fully agree with you.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1869948' date='May 17 2009, 11:22 PM']As a Catholic of the Roman Rite, I must side with my former bishop, the late John Paul II.[/quote]

Wait... you're from Rome?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='picchick' post='1869707' date='May 17 2009, 09:17 PM']Do we not recieve the gifts of the Holy Spirit when we all recieve Confirmation?[/quote]

Yes... receiving the charismatic gifts is not a separate action or sacrament by any means. Being "baptized in the Holy Spirit" in the charismatic way basically means those gifts are exercised and brought forth in a tangible way. Or nothing at all may happen. You can tell a good charismatic group by their acceptance of the fact that not everyone receives the gift to pray in tongues or whatever (as St. Paul recognized) along with their insistence that you must build your faith upon an active sacramental life.

[XIX]

You know...

just because a practice is widely abused, doesn't make it an unacceptable practice.


Example: Receiving Holy Communion.

that is all.

Edited May 18, 2009 by XIX

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='XIX' post='1869968' date='May 17 2009, 09:49 PM']You know...

just because a practice is widely abused, doesn't make it an unacceptable practice.


Example: Receiving Holy Communion.

that is all.[/quote]

That is true to an extent.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='XIX' post='1869968' date='May 17 2009, 11:49 PM']You know...

just because a practice is widely abused, doesn't make it an unacceptable practice.


Example: Receiving Holy Communion.

that is all.[/quote]

I don't think anyone is saying that the imposition of the hands is an unacceptable practice. In the administration of the Sacrament of Order, It is required that the ordaining bishop lay his hands on those being ordained.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1869344' date='May 17 2009, 11:57 AM']It's not really possible for the priest to touch the penitent if there's a screen between the two. In fact, that's why the screen was first mandated: to prevent unchaste touches and other sins against the sixth commandment.[/quote]

Where on earth did you hear this?

I am digging and digging right now and am not finding it.

The closest "lead" I have is - [b]The revised Roman Ritual of 1614 notes that confessions should be heard from behind a screen.[/b] Which does not tell me WHY.

Source: [url="http://www.faithmag.com/FAITHMag/column2.asp?ArticleID=90"]http://www.faithmag.com/FAITHMag/column2.asp?ArticleID=90[/url]

[Resurrexi]

"Can. 964 §1. The proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a church or oratory.

§2. The conference of bishops is to establish norms regarding the confessional; it is to take care, however, that there are always confessionals with a fixed grate between the penitent and the confessor in an open place so that the faithful who wish to can use them freely.

§3. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a just cause.

The final form of this canon is the result of several variant redactions during the recodification process. In particular, canons 909-110 of the former code had singled out the confessions of women for special restrictions, indication that the confessional for their celebration of the sacrament should be in an open and conspicuous place, while permitting the sacrament to be celebrated for male penitents even in private homes. In some places, moreover, it was customary and acceptable for confessions of men to take place regularly in rooms, sacristies, and other areas without the use of a special confessional." ( [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&pg=PA1149&lpg=PA1149&dq=Fixed+grate+Confession&source=bl&ots=GI5IPBAz4f&sig=7jN4w06dRFr0P0-coFS3gJEe3D0&hl=en&ei=WCgSSvfDHpjMMtav-P4M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6"]http://books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5...lt&resnum=6[/url] )

[Resurrexi]

The oldest confessionals were very open. Most looked something like these: [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_g_qXXK7DGE4/R9JWTsvhBuI/AAAAAAAADBo/Vbnxn3JVah8/s400/confessional.jpg[/img]

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/The_confession.jpg/484px-The_confession.jpg[/img]

Very open. There is a reason why women, and not men, had to confess in these open confessionals in church where everyone could see.

[HisChildForever]

Even though those confessionals were "open" I can still see screens. You initially stated that screens were mandated to ensure that there was no unchaste touching. But it seems from the pictures you have provided that screens have always been around, and it is a matter of an "open" confessional or a "closed" (being in a small room or enclosed space) confessional.

Perhaps the "open" confessional was to protect the image of both priest and lady and to ensure that no scandal or gossip would spread, rather than to protect one or both parties from unchaste touching (which makes it sound as if the Church did not trust priests and/or women).

[CatherineM]

I can't recall a single time going to confession behind the screen. I go to confession now in my confessor's office. Our old church only has the small closet thing with the kneelers, and since I am physically incapable of kneeling, they don't really work for me.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1870660' date='May 18 2009, 11:55 PM']I can't recall a single time going to confession behind the screen. I go to confession now in my confessor's office. Our old church only has the small closet thing with the kneelers, and since I am physically incapable of kneeling, they don't really work for me.[/quote]

Yeah I always do face-to-face.

[Nihil Obstat]

I've never had the option of the screen. I would take it if anyone asked, because I get so nervous at confession........

Edited May 19, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1870659' date='May 18 2009, 11:54 PM']Even though those confessionals were "open" I can still see screens. You initially stated that screens were mandated to ensure that there was no unchaste touching. But it seems from the pictures you have provided that screens have always been around, and it is a matter of an "open" confessional or a "closed" (being in a small room or enclosed space) confessional.

Perhaps the "open" confessional was to protect the image of both priest and lady and to ensure that no scandal or gossip would spread, rather than to protect one or both parties from unchaste touching (which makes it sound as if the Church did not trust priests and/or women).[/quote]

Yes. The type of confession with screens [i]was[/i] originally mandated so that there would be no unchaste touching or even worse sins. The earliest confessions were very open with screens because the original purpose of the confessional was well understood at that time. Only later did more closed confessionals develop, probably for the sake of privacy and prevention of confessions being overheard.

As you can see in this 15th century altarpiece, confession was clearly done without a screen during the Middle Ages:

[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_13_o75enBsc/RvbvNqEkITI/AAAAAAAAAvM/HBkK4newNTo/s320/690px-Rogier_van_der_Weyden-_Seven_Sacraments_Altarpiece_-_Baptism,_Confirmation,_and_Penance;_detail,_left_wing.jpg[/img]

Examples of confessionals appear in early Baroque ecclesiastical architecture, which means that they were first used during the Counter-Reformation. It was probably, then, the Protestant Reformers accusing priests of immoral activity with the women confessing to them that led to the introduction of the confessional.

Confessionals were formerly only required for women. Men could confess in a number of places. I'm sure you understand the reasoning behind this.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Resurrexi