Praying Over Someone

[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

[LouisvilleFan]

I give my confessions in tongues. And my priest translates.

[Apotheoun]

Some Eastern Catholic Churches still have confessionals, but they are slowly being removed as the Eastern Catholic Churches return to their traditional practices.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1869953' date='May 17 2009, 09:26 PM']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.[/quote]
Sadly, the terminology of the Charismatics remains Protestant. One is baptized with the Holy Spirit when he is baptized with water during the ritual of the Holy Mystery. This idea that one later in life receives a "baptism of the Holy Spirit," which is distinct from the mystery (sacrament) of baptism, that activates charismatic gifts is Pentecostal nonsense.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1869645' date='May 17 2009, 07:54 PM']...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.[/quote]

Someone should've told John Paul II... or the many religious, deacons, priests, bishops and cardinals who happen to be charismatic

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1869645' date='May 17 2009, 07:54 PM']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.[/quote]

There are countless charismatic groups out there... the good ones promote Catholicism and even view the movement as a connection for drawing Pentecostals and other Protestant charismatics closer to the fullness of Truth.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1869645' date='May 17 2009, 07:54 PM']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.[/quote]

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.

When people do what you have seen, they are abusing the gift of tongues for their own ends. They need good, Catholic pastoral leadership. The good charismatic groups I've been involved with were held at Catholic retreat centers with priests and religious around or sponsored by the diocese, etc.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1870735' date='May 18 2009, 10:55 PM']. . . or the many religious, deacons, priests, bishops and cardinals who happen to be charismatic [/quote]
Many religious, deacons, priests, bishops, et al., were Arians, and many holding those same offices were Nestorians, but that doesn't make Arianism or Nestorianism orthodox.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1870734' date='May 19 2009, 01:54 AM']Sadly, the terminology of the Charismatics remains Protestant. One is baptized with the Holy Spirit when he is baptized with water during the ritual of the Holy Mystery. This idea that one later in life receives a "baptism of the Holy Spirit," which is distinct from the mystery (sacrament) of baptism, that activates charismatic gifts is Pentecostal nonsense.[/quote]

Baptism is necessary for salvation.

"Baptism of the Holy Spirit" is not necessary for salvation. It's completely optional, and for that matter, one could pray all day and night to receive some gift and never receive it if isn't God's will. But, better to not pray in tongues and have love than the other way around. Unfortunately, many charismatics could stand to read some Corinthians... the root of it is apparently a weak faith, hence the need for Confession and Eucharist, Scripture, the Rosary, etc. Praying in tongues can only do so much if one isn't diving deeper into the love of Christ.

[KnightofChrist]

No proof has been given that John Paul II was 'charismatic' in the sense that he was a member of said name's movement. No proof has been given that the 'Charismatic movement' understanding of tongues is the same as what St. Paul was speaking about.

Edited May 19, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1870738' date='May 19 2009, 02:03 AM']Many religious, deacons, priests, bishops, et al., were Arians, and many holding those same offices were Nestorians, but that doesn't make Arianism or Nestorianism orthodox.[/quote]

Catholic charismatics are Catholic first. They aren't bringing any new doctrine or changing anything fundamental and essential to the Church.

There is a sizable group of charismatics who place their Catholicism second. Leave them aside because we aren't talking about them. I'm only talking about genuinely Catholic Christians who exercise charismatic gifts in one form or another. You'd probably be surprised how many are out there... you probably know some personally and respect their faith and orthodoxy, but since they don't make a big deal out of it, you wouldn't know unless you asked.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1870709' date='May 19 2009, 12:31 AM']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.[/quote]

In the pictures you provided of the open confessionals, screen or no screen it would be impossible to touch each other in a sexual manner, as all the world could see it. I do not understand how putting a screen or barrier up between the priest and parishioner prevents touching IF the confessional is open for all to see. If the confessional was very private and enclosed, and there was a fear of inappropriate touching, then yes I understand the need to have a screen or barrier present. You initially said that the SCREEN was mandated to prevent sexual encounters. However, I believe you meant to say that the screen was mandated for private confessions because an open confessional PLUS a screen is a bit redundant. As I said, no priest or women would make a "move" if the confessional is open for the public to see, screen or no screen.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Which is exactly what I said earlier. I have an incredibly hard time believing that the purpose of physically separating priest and parishioner was to prevent sexual encounters. (Which is what you stated earlier.) I have an easier time believing that the Church was not afraid this would happen, but rather worried that so-and-so would start gossiping about the privacy of Confession - which would cause scandal for the Church. The barrier was probably meant to protect the reputation of the priest, parishioner, and Church rather than serve as a "chaperon." Otherwise it is a blatant slap in the face to priests, that they are not trusted in the confessional.

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

Actually I would appreciate it if you explained this better.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1870738' date='May 19 2009, 01:03 AM']Many religious, deacons, priests, bishops, et al., were Arians, and many holding those same offices were Nestorians, but that doesn't make Arianism or Nestorianism orthodox.[/quote]