A Little Help Explaining Some Apologetics

[Th0t]

Now a really good friend of mine are speaking about the role of Mary and why the Hail Mary prayer, and why priests and confessional booths.

Here is what he wrote after I gave some explanation:

“So let me just get some clarification…truly the Scriptures show Mary to be highly favored of the Lord and blessed for times to come…but is it Scriptural that prayer should avail to or for Christ through her purpose? Like I definitely agree God gave her grand blessing and position to be the mother of the Lord as He came in the flesh but where does the supplication by her name in connection with the Lord read by the Word of God? As far as the priestly uses by God for forgiveness, was not the need for this done away with in Christ? This is the reason I ask, truly indeed, in the Old Testament priest where key in the interceding for remission of sin but as Christ came as the ultimate High Priest and sacrifice, He removed the priestly role in forgiveness in that the atoning of sin came through Him by remission on His blood (Hebrews 5) and now confession is unto Him directly from His followers (1 John 1:9). This is not to ignore the noble charge that you stated Christ giving His disciples, but it is my belief that this was specific to His disciples whom were equipped with the task of introducing all humanity to the Christ in the order of His steps and therefore given such responsibility to forgive sins as He had, in the totality of salvation rather than deeds of sin after being saved.”

Now he is a mature Christian and he respects my beliefs as do I his, as he has said “But if what we were to believe contrasted one another’s beliefs, it’s not the job of us to show “who’s right” but the Spirit reveals truth. I’m trying to get perspective ya dig?.. But this is my belief, not as to say that yours is false or not but to present and be able to examine both sides together.”

I’d just like to help him be guided to the truth of the Church. Also, I want to learn how to get better prepared to defend our Mother Church. :]

 

[True_Believer_1]

First of all, make sure that they understand that as Catholics we do not worship Mary, or any of the saints, we simply ask them to please pray for us just like we would ask a friend here on earth to pray for us. It is what we call the communion of saints, an unbroken line between the Church Militant here on Earth and the Church Triumphant in Heaven.

As the very mother of God, Mary is honored as first among women, and indeed among all of the saints.

As far as confession and the priests are concerned, Christ gave his Apostles the authority to loose and to bind–What they loose, (forgive) on Earth is forgiven in Heaven and what they bind, (do not forgive), on Eath is bound, (not forgiven) in Heaven. The Catholic Priest receives this authority as passed down to them from Christ through his followers.

May God Bless You Always!

**NOT JUST STRONG…CATHOLIC STRONG!!! **

 

[OchsFam]

As far as confession and the priests are concerned, Christ gave his Apostles the authority to loose and to bind–What they loose, (forgive) on Earth is forgiven in Heaven and what they bind, (do not forgive), on Eath is bound, (not forgiven) in Heaven. The Catholic Priest receives this authority as passed down to them from Christ through his followers.

On this note, you may want to use Acts 1:15-25 to show that it wasn’t simply the disciples that were granted the power to loose and bind, but their office. In the continuation of their office, the power to loose and bind was also continued. Because there is proof of succession of office, it would be up to him to prove that this authority given to the office was meant only for a select few.

 

[Becks]

…this was specific to His disciples whom were equipped with the task of introducing all humanity to the Christ in the order of His steps and therefore given such responsibility to forgive sins as He had…

If this is the case then I might counter by examining how much of humanity was introduced to Christ by his disciples. To do this you would not only have to consider the geographic aspect - did the disciples travel to every place on the earth where people lived - but also the temporal aspect - certainly people are still being “introduced” to Christ today - and I would venture to say that it is not the disciples who are introducing them. So, if there were people that the disciples could not personally reach then surely God would’ve made sure that this task - and therefore the authority given to perform this task - would’ve been able to be passed on to others, namely the bishops of the Catholic Church.

 

[ryanoneil]

I think this scripture is very revealing.

1 Tim 2:1
First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone,
2
for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity.
3
This is good and pleasing to God our savior,
4
who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.
5
For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human,

Although Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and man, there are many intercessors (subordinate mediators) in Him. Paul is appealing for mediation from others because this subordinate mediation is good and acceptable to God our Savior. Because God is our Father and we are His children, God invites us to participate in Christ’s role as mediator.

For we are God’s co-workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. (1 Cor 3:9)

 

[Ignatius33]

Now a really good friend of mine are speaking about the role of Mary and why the Hail Mary prayer, and why priests and confessional booths.

I’ll just respond to the Confession issue. Catholics believe that Jesus Himself established Confession as the normative means of obtaining forgiveness of sins (that is, sins committed after Baptism). Catholics rely especially on a passage in the Gospel of John. Specifically, John states: “[Jesus] said to [the Apostles] again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, so am I sending you.’ After saying this he breathed on them and said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained’” (Jn. 20:21-23). Catholics believe that this passage clearly establishes the Sacrament of Confession. Three things stick out to the Catholic.

First, Jesus remarks that He is sending his Apostles as the Father sent Him. Jesus, as the Son of God, was sent with the authority of God, which included the authority to forgive sins, a power He repeatedly employed during His ministry. Second, Jesus “breathed” on His apostles in this passage. The only other time in the Bible that God breathes on man is when He breathed on Adam, infusing him with a soul (Gen. 2:7). John is obviously stressing the significance of what Jesus is about to do. Finally, the plain sense of the passage is just what it says: the Apostles were given the power to forgive (some translations say “remit”) or retain (i.e., not forgive) another’s sins. Naturally, the Apostles could not know what sins to forgive or retain unless the penitent orally “confessed” those sins. Catholics believe that this ministry was passed on to the successors of the Apostles, the bishops and priests of the Church (why would Jesus intend that this ministry should die with the death of the Apostles, when His Church was to continue?). Protestants try to avoid the plain meaning of this passage by asserting that it simply refers to the “Great Commission” (i.e., Jesus was merely enjoining the Apostles to “preach” the forgiveness of sins [see Matt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15-18]). If so, why did Jesus mention the “retaining” of sins, particularly when He previously had told Peter to forgive a trespasser seventy times seven times, i.e., ad infinitum (Matt. 18:21-22)? How does the “retention” of sins fit into “preaching” the forgiveness of sins? It doesn’t.

Other Bible passages support the Catholic position. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus tells Peter individually and later the Apostles collectively that “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). The Catholic sees in these passages the authority of the Apostles (and their successors) to excommunicate members (see also Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:3-5) and to reconcile them to the Body of Christ, implicating the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

That Matthew assumed Jesus gave the church the authority to forgive sins is made virtually certain by another passage which is very often overlooked. I will cite it in full, even though it is a familiar passage:

“But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, ‘Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, “Your sins are forgiven,” or to say, “Rise and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he then said to the paralytic—’Rise, take up your bed and go home.’ And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (Matthew 9:4-8).

The crucial part is the last sentence: it says God have given “such authority to men.” First, what is the “authority” in question? Clearly it is the “authority on earth to forgive sins” mentioned in v. 6:38. Second, observe that Matthew 9:8 says this “authority” (again, the authority to forgive sins) is given to “men.” Matthew did not write “man,” in the singular, but “men,” in the plural. The most natural referent for these “men” is the leaders of the church. I conclude that this strengthens the interpretation of Matthew 18
according to which the church’s power to bind and loose is the authority to forgive and retain sins.

Paul also wrote that God “reconciled us to himself through Christ and he gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18) and that “[w]homever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ” (2 Cor. 2:10). Relatedly, James notes: “Any of you who is ill should send for the elders of the church, and they must anoint the sick person with oil in the name of the Lord and pray over him. The prayer of faith will save the sick person and the Lord will raise him up again; and if he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. So confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another to be cured; the heartfelt prayer of someone upright works very powerfully” (James 5:13-16). The Catholic Church sees in this passage in James the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, which results in the forgiveness of sins and the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of the individual’s soul.

Protestants sometimes object that Jesus could not have intended to bestow this power on the Church because Paul said that Jesus was the “one mediator between God and the humanity” (1 Tim. 2:5). Catholics fully agree that Jesus is the sole mediator of the New Covenant: He is the only God-Man, bridging the gap between mankind and God, and it was Jesus’ humanity that enabled Him to be the Savior of all. Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that He precludes Christians from participating or sharing in His mediatorship. Quite the opposite. For example, all Christians agree that it is good to pray on behalf of one another (Paul himself stressed this in 1 Tim. 2:1-4). No one complains that the Christian is impermissibly interfering with Jesus’ sole mediatorship even though he is undoubtedly taking an “indirect” route to God when he asks another to pray (“mediate”) for him. Catholics believe that Jesus shares His mediatorship with us, and particularly His Church, in many ways – but most especially in the administration of the Sacraments (points at which grace touches nature or the divine intersects with the mortal), performed by the Apostles and their ordained successors. In administering the Sacrament of Confession, the priest is not wielding his own powers; rather, he is standing in persona Christi (“in the person of Christ”), and it is only through the power of God Himself that sins are actually forgiven (hence, Bible verses used by Protestants to prove that sins are forgiven through God’s power alone, a view fully shared by the Catholic Church, in no way contradict or disprove the Church’s teaching).

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

Relatedly, the Catholic believes that the New Covenant mirrors the Old Covenant (but is far superior, of course) in regards to the priesthood. In the Old Testament, a pyramid system existed: at the top was God, the High Priest; at the bottom, all Jews were seen as participants in the priesthood inasmuch as Israel was “a kingdom of priests, a holy nation” (Ex. 19:6); in the middle existed a ministerial priesthood, distinct from the universal priesthood (Ex. 28; Num. 3:1-12). In the New Testament, Jesus is the High Priest and all Christians are seen as members of a holy priesthood: “set yourselves close to him so that you, too, may be living stones making a spiritual house as a holy priesthood to offer the spiritual sacrifices made acceptable to God through Jesus Christ . . . But you are a chosen race, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, a people to be a personal possession to sing the praises of God” (2 Peter 2:5-9). Catholics believe that Jesus Himself established a ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant as well, inasmuch as He instituted the sacraments (e.g., Baptism [Jn. 3:5], Eucharist [Jn. 6] and Confession [Jn. 20:23]) and instructed the Apostles (and, Catholics believe, their ordained successors) to administer them. And the Catholic Church is not alone in this regard. All of the pre-Reformation Christian Churches that splintered from the Universal Church (some more than a millennium before the Reformation) have a ministerial priesthood that is continued through the apostolic succession (e.g., the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, including the Copts and Ethiopians, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches). Every pre-Reformation Church that I am aware of practices the Sacrament of Confession.

At bottom, Protestants follow a “me and Jesus” approach to confession. While this approach sounds fine, Catholics don’t follow it because they believe that Jesus, as the Divine Physician and Psychologist, established a different formula (Jn. 20:21-23). Catholics also believe that they enjoy additional benefits through Confession that Protestants miss out on. First, divulging one’s sins to another (not simply silently to God) teaches humility (and gives one pause when confronted with an opportunity to sin – particularly grave sin – knowing it must be confessed later). Second, the priest can offer practical advice to aid the Catholic regarding any particular struggles with sin (thereby replacing the psychologist’s couch). Third, Catholics believe that they receive actual graces when they go to Confession, strengthening them in resisting sins in the future (Catholics believe that all of Christ’s Sacraments are means of conveying God’s grace). Fourth, given mankind’s incredible ability to self-deceive, the Catholic enjoys a concrete assurance that his sins have been forgiven when he physically hears the priest’s words: “God, the Father of mercies, through the death and the resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” And finally, inasmuch as sin not only offends God, but also injures the communal Body of Christ (since every sin ultimately hurts someone other than the sinner), it makes sense to involve the Church, the Body of Christ, in reconciling the sinner with God and His Church.

Finally, the earliest Christians believed that the Church had the authority to forgive sins, as demonstrated by the following passages:

1. The Didache: “Confess your offenses in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life . . . On the Lord’s Day of the Lord * gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache [before 100 AD]).
2. St. Irenaeus: “[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women in our own district of the Rhone, by saying and doing such things. Their consciences branded as with a hot iron, some of these women make a public confession; but others are ashamed to do this, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies [ca. 180 AD]).
3. Tertullian referred to this sacrament as “the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace” (Repentance 203/204 AD).
4. St. Hippolytus of Rome observed that bishops “by the Spirit of the high-priesthood have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” [Jn. 20:21-23] (The Apostolic Tradition [ca. 215 AD]).
5. Origin noted that a Christian “does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine” (Homilies on Leviticus [after 244 AD]).
6. St. Cyprian of Carthage: “Although you sent me a letter in which you ask that consideration be given your desire that, after the [Decian] persecution is over and we begin to gather together again and to meet together with the clergy, peace be then extended to the lapsed, those [aforementioned presbyters] have dared – contrary to the law of the gospel, contrary even to your respectful petition, before penance has been done, before a confession of the most grave and extreme sin has been made, before a hand has been imposed in penance by the bishop and the clergy – to offer on their behalf and to give them the Eucharist; that is, to profane the holy Body of the Lord, in spite of what is written: ‘Whosoever shall eat the Bread or drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord’” [1 Cor. 11:27] (Letter in Reply to Certain Martyrs and Confessors [250 AD]). Elsewhere, Cyprian remarked that those who receive Holy Communion before confessing to a priest the sin of denying Christ to avoid persecution or death at the hands of the imperial Roman authorities “do violence to His Body and Blood; and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied Him” (The Lapsed [251 AD]).

continued…*

 

[Ignatius33]

1. Aphraates the Persian Sage: “You physicians *, then, who are the disciples of our illustrious Physician, you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us” (Treatises [inter 336-345 AD]).
2. St. Hilary of Poitiers: “[On Matthew 18:18] The power of binding and loosing given to the Apostles: In our present condition we are all subdued by the terror of that greatest dread *. And now, out in front of that terror, He sets the irrevocable apostolic judgment, however severe, so that those whom they shall bind on earth, that is, whomsoever they leave bound in the knots of their sins; and those whom they loose, which is to say, those who by their confession receive grace unto salvation – these, in accord with the apostolic sentence, are bound or loosed also in heaven” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [ca. 353-355 AD]).
3. St. John Chrysostom: “They who inhabit the earth, they who make their abode among men, are entrusted with the dispensation of the things of heaven! Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed’ [Matt. 18:18]. Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can bind only the body. Priests, however, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself, and transcends the very heavens. Whatever priests do here on earth, God will confirm in heaven, just as the master ratifies the decisions of his servants. Did He not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ He says, ‘they are forgiven them: whose sins you shall retain, they are retained’ [Jn. 20:23]. What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all the judgment to the Son [Jn. 5:22]. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven, elevated above human nature, and freed of its limitations . . . The priests of Judaism had power to cleanse the body from leprosy – or rather, not to cleanse it at all, but to declare a person as having been cleansed [Lev. 14:2-3]. And you know how much contention there was even in those times to obtain the priestly office. Our priests have received the power not of treating with the leprosy of the body, but with spiritual uncleanness; not of declaring cleansed, but of actually cleansing” (The Priesthood [after 386 AD]).
4. St. Pacian of Barcelona: “Certainly God never threatens the repentant; rather, He pardons the penitent. You will say that it is God alone who can do this. True enough; but it is likewise true that He does it through His priests, who exercise His power. What else can it mean when He says to His Apostles: ‘Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven?’ [Matt. 16:19; Jn. 20:23]. Why should he say this if He were not permitting men to bind and to loose? Why, if He were permitting this to the Apostles alone? Were that the case, He would likewise be permitting them alone to baptize, them alone to Confer the Holy Spirit, them alone to cleanse the pagans of their sins; for all of these things are commissioned not to others but to the Apostles. But if the loosing of bonds and the power of the Sacrament is given to anyone in that place, either the whole is passed on to us from the form and power of the Apostles, or nothing of it can be imparted to us by whatever decrees . . . If, then, the power both of Baptism and Confirmation, greater by far than charisms, is passed on to the bishops, so too is the right of binding and of loosing . . . ‘Whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19; Jn. 20:23]. ‘Whatever you shall loose,’ He says; and He excepts absolutely nothing. ‘Whatever,’ He says: whether it be great or whether it be small” (Three Letters to the Novatianist Sympronian [inter 375-392 AD]).
5. St. Ambrose of Milan: “Things that are impossible with men are possible with God. God is able, whenever He wills, to forgive us our sins, even those we think cannot be forgiven. Thus it is possible for God to give us what to us seems impossible to obtain. Now, it seemed impossible that sin should be washed away in water . . . But what was impossible was made possible by God, who gave us so great a grace. It seemed likewise impossible for sins to be forgiven through penance; yet Christ granted even this to His Apostles, and by His Apostles it has been transmitted to the offices of priests. That has been made possible, therefore, which seemed to be impossible” (Penance [387/390 AD]).
6. St. Augustine: “The remission of sins is their unbinding . . . Let this be in the heart of the penitent: when you hear a man confessing his sins, he has already come to life again; when you hear a man lay bare his conscience in confessing, he has already come forth from the sepulcher; but he is not yet unbound. When is he unbound? By whom is he unbound? ‘Whatever you loose on earth,’ He says, ‘shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. Rightly is the loosing of sins able to be given by the Church” (Explanation of the Psalms [inter 392-418 AD]). Augustine also remarked: “Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church” (Christian Combat [396/397 AD]).
7. Salaman the Church historian: “Because to be entirely without sin belongs more to divine than to human nature, God has decreed that pardon is to be extended to those who repent even after many transgressions. Since in asking pardon it is necessary to confess the sin, it seems likely that from the very beginning priests saw that it was burdensome for the people to confess their sins in public and with the whole church as witness. So they appointed a presbyter who could conduct himself with the utmost self-control and prudence to be in charge of this. It was to him that the penitents went to confess their transgressions. His was the task of assessing the penalty that had to be exacted for each sin and, when satisfaction had been made, of absolving them” (History of the Church [ca. 439 AD]).

Hope that helps.**

 

[Th0t]

Okay after a couple of days lol this was his response. I copied and pasted what was written from Ignatius33 and sent it to him (not as if i wrote it) because honestly I’m just beginning as an apologist and am not really prepared.

He said:
*Catholics believe that Jesus Himself established Confession as the normative means of obtaining forgiveness of sins (that is, sins committed after Baptism). Catholics rely especially on a passage in the Gospel of John. Specifically, John states: “[Jesus] said to [the Apostles] again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, so am I sending you.’ After saying this he breathed on them and said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained’” (Jn. 20:21-23). Catholics believe that this passage clearly establishes the Sacrament of Confession. Three things stick out to the Catholic.

((HOLE 1…read this passage in the context of Christ’s ministry which He was passing to His disciples…Christ forgave sins as bringing people into salvation, not as post salvation confession. This type of confession is reserved for God as nowhere in scriputure except the old testament can it be seen that a believer in God goes through a priest or prophet to reconcile the fellowship with God when they have sinned. Hebrews clearly tells us that “8Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.” Meaning Christ stepped into the role that priests played in the forgiveness of sin for believers and through His blood His disciples could now give access to God through Him, but forgiveness for believers was by God’s hand alone."

First, Jesus remarks that He is sending his Apostles as the Father sent Him. Jesus, as the Son of God, was sent with the authority of God, which included the authority to forgive sins, a power He repeatedly employed during His ministry.

((HOLE 2 Christ, as God, had the authority of God already. So in what manner was He really sent? His life’s purpose was to be an example, to give God glory, and to bring many unto salvation which is the like manner in which the disciples were sent. The forgiving of sins was indeed grace through faith as each person who was healed and forgiven of sins experienced it because of their faith.))

Second, Jesus “breathed” on His apostles in this passage. The only other time in the Bible that God breathes on man is when He breathed on Adam, infusing him with a soul (Gen. 2:7). John is obviously stressing the significance of what Jesus is about to do. Finally, the plain sense of the passage is just what it says: the Apostles were given the power to forgive (some translations say “remit”) or retain (i.e., not forgive) another’s sins. Naturally, the Apostles could not know what sins to forgive or retain unless the penitent orally “confessed” those sins. Catholics believe that this ministry was passed on to the successors of the Apostles, the bishops and priests of the Church (why would Jesus intend that this ministry should die with the death of the Apostles, when His Church was to continue?). Protestants try to avoid the plain meaning of this passage by asserting that it simply refers to the “Great Commission” (i.e., Jesus was merely enjoining the Apostles to “preach” the forgiveness of sins [see Matt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15-18]). If so, why did Jesus mention the “retaining” of sins, particularly when He previously had told Peter to forgive a trespasser seventy times seven times, i.e., ad infinitum (Matt. 18:21-22)? How does the “retention” of sins fit into “preaching” the forgiveness of sins? It doesn’t.

((Key questions to answer for yourself here: Jesus had not yet been glorified before men for them to believe, so how could this passage refer to forgiving sins of believers? If sins of non-believers’ sins were to be forgiven, it would mean that the apostles had spurned them onto salvation in the Christ…so forgiving sins here would likely mean salvation, right? Jesus told the apostles in John 15 they would know those truely saved by the fruits they display so clearly they would know and be able to judge whose sins were really forgiven by salvation But you are correct in that the breathing on the disciples was a major indication, it was spiritual life as He breathed into them the ability to receive the Holy Spirit. The verse is about a call to preach…for with limited believers in Christ at the time, they would all be turning to God as their sole means of forgiveness.))

Other Bible passages support the Catholic position. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus tells Peter individually and later the Apostles collectively that “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). The Catholic sees in these passages the authority of the Apostles (and their successors) to excommunicate members (see also Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:3-5) and to reconcile them to the Body of Christ, implicating the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

((The power of binding refers to forgiving sins? What men can pronounce such judgment?..True it may be that Christ gave us the ministry of preaching forgiveness but is He saying we can say men are unforgiven? No…this was telling Peter something specific: A metaphor taken from stewards who carry the keys: and here is set forth the power of the ministers of the word, as Isaiah 22:22 says, and that power is common to all ministers, as Matthew 18:18 says, and therefore the ministry of the gospel may rightly be called the key of the kingdom of heaven. It is the power to open the opportunity to walk into to heaven…to provide the chance to be forgiven. But men themselves much choose to enter. So the forgiving power of men is simply to open the opportunity for men to come unto forgiveness in Christ.))*

Help please?

:godbless:

 

[Th0t]

Continues after “unto forgiveness in Christ.”

*That Matthew assumed Jesus gave the church the authority to forgive sins is made virtually certain by another passage which is very often overlooked. I will cite it in full, even though it is a familiar passage:

“But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, ‘Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, “Your sins are forgiven,” or to say, “Rise and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he then said to the paralytic—’Rise, take up your bed and go home.’ And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (Matthew 9:4-8).

The crucial part is the last sentence: it says God have given “such authority to men.” First, what is the “authority” in question? Clearly it is the “authority on earth to forgive sins” mentioned in v. 6:38. Second, observe that Matthew 9:8 says this “authority” (again, the authority to forgive sins) is given to “men.” Matthew did not write “man,” in the singular, but “men,” in the plural. The most natural referent for these “men” is the leaders of the church. I conclude that this strengthens the interpretation of Matthew 18
according to which the church’s power to bind and loose is the authority to forgive and retain sins.

((Here it is so important to understand that the masses did not believe that Jesus was God and so assumed that God had given authority like this to more than just Christ, which He did as far as healing but forgiveness of sin is always through Christ. Another key question: how could this passage refer to the “men” leading the church that was not yet even established?))

Paul also wrote that God “reconciled us to himself through Christ and he gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18) and that “[w]homever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ” (2 Cor. 2:10). Relatedly, James notes: “Any of you who is ill should send for the elders of the church, and they must anoint the sick person with oil in the name of the Lord and pray over him. The prayer of faith will save the sick person and the Lord will raise him up again; and if he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. So confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another to be cured; the heartfelt prayer of someone upright works very powerfully” (James 5:13-16). The Catholic Church sees in this passage in James the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, which results in the forgiveness of sins and the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of the individual’s soul.

((Both quotes in Corinthians show the context of Paul teaching a newly planted church to forgive and that forgiveness is done once and for all. He spoke from Christ’s authority to show the church that when man seeks forgiveness, Christ gives forgiveness that no one can take away.))

Protestants sometimes object that Jesus could not have intended to bestow this power on the Church because Paul said that Jesus was the “one mediator between God and the humanity” (1 Tim. 2:5). Catholics fully agree that Jesus is the sole mediator of the New Covenant: He is the only God-Man, bridging the gap between mankind and God, and it was Jesus’ humanity that enabled Him to be the Savior of all. Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that He precludes Christians from participating or sharing in His mediatorship. Quite the opposite. For example, all Christians agree that it is good to pray on behalf of one another (Paul himself stressed this in 1 Tim. 2:1-4). No one complains that the Christian is impermissibly interfering with Jesus’ sole mediatorship even though he is undoubtedly taking an “indirect” route to God when he asks another to pray (“mediate”) for him.

((This is quite beautifully put and your best point however ask this…Christ’s intercession alone results in forgiveness while intercessory prayer cannot result in forgiveness on it’s own by the lips of men but instead must be through Christ to accomplish anything which is why we pray in the name of Christ. As to intercede, it is clear that we are called to do so but what scriptural proof is there that priest or prophet or apostle intercedes in the process of forgiving sins of a believer after Christ has died and raised? The only true call to confession for believers after Christ’s atoning work is in James 5:15-17 wherein we are structed to pray that healing will come, pssibly alluding to forgiveness, but the indication is that the healing does not come from our prayer but rather from God as we ask. Therefore, do we have power to forgive a believer’s fall? Only in our own hearts, for it is Christ’s forgiveness of the sin that purges the guilt.))

^^^Hope that helps*

 

[dcdurel]

I sure some Catholics will express scriptural evidence for Catholic beliefs in some more posts. But I want to approach from a different persective.
Protestants think that scripture alone is the source of Christian teachings, because that is what they have been taught. Thus, they think the Catholic Church also learned her doctrines from scripture. Thus they can’t understand how the Church can have such developed and extensive doctrines, from the little that scripture teaches clearly.
And even if the scriptures are very clear in supporting what the Church teaches, Protestants think they have the right and duty to have alternate interpretations. Thus, there is never extensive agreement using scripture.

So to clear up the problem, we must explain where the Catholic faith and the doctrines of the Catholic faith come from.  If a Protestant does not understand this, he will always be confused.

We always start with Jesus.

And since the bible is basically salvation history, we can then use the bible to show the history of the Church’s doctrines.

                             Jesus is the fullness of revelation.   As the Catechism teaches.

God has said everything in his Word.1
In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one.
God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son.
Jesus Christ “completed and perfected Revelation”
The fact that Jesus Christ is the fullness of Revelation is the foundation for the “Christocentricity” (92) of catechesis: the mystery of Christ, in the revealed message, is not another element alongside others, it is rather the center from which all other elements are structured and illuminated.

Scripture is a witness to these teachings of the Church.
“All things have been delivered to me by my Father…” Mt 11:27
In Jesus "are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” Col 2:3
In Christ “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9)

Therefore, since Jesus is the fullness of revelation, we don’t start off with the Old Testament which is a forshadowing of the Gospel, or with St. Paul or even with the New Testament. We start with Jesus, in whom God has said EVERYTHING.

1. 
   *]**Jesus taught the apostles, the leaders of the Church, “everything” and “all things” through the Holy Spirit. Nothing is left out. **
   
   Mr 4:34 “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
   John 15:15 “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
   John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
   
   Since Jesus, the fullness of revelation, revealed everything to His apostles, then there is no teaching that scripture adds to the Gospel. There is no teaching of scripture in the Old testament, and there is no teaching of scripture in the New Testament that adds to the doctrines the apostles learned from Jesus. Thus, the Church did NOT learn her doctrines from scripture, but she leaned then directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit, who taught them “all things”.

 

[dcdurel]

1. 
   *]Now,
   Jesus commanded the apostles to preach and teach this Gospel, that contains the fullness of revelation. In Mark 16:16 He said that those who believed this Gospel and were baptized would be saved, and those who did not believe this Gospel would be condemned.
   
   Thus, Jesus said it was necessary to know this Gospel that the apostles taught and preached to be saved. That is because this Gospel contains everything Jesus taught His apostles. And Jesus, not the bible, is the fullness of revelation.
   
   Therefore it is His Gospel that contains the fullness of revelation. That is why the Church teaches that the primary duty of priests and bishops is to proclaim the Gospel.
   
   Now this is the Protestant Problem.
   
   There is not a single book of the bible, there is not a single chapter of the bible, that claims to have a summary of this Gospel that the apostles taught and preached. That is right. No where in the bible does it claim to have even a summary of this Gospel. Yet this Gospel contains EVERYTHING the Father told Jesus.
   
   The New Testament was written to Catholics who already knew this Gospel. How did they learn it? They were taught it by the apostles. Thus, the entire Gospel, all the doctrines, the early Christians learned directly from the apostles. In other words, the entire Gospel and all the teachings of Jesus, were handed down in Tradition, oral teach and preaching. The whole Catholic faith was handed down in Tradition, oral teaching and preaching. That is why the Catechism says everything the Church believes is handed down in Tradition. The Church did not learn a single doctrine from scripture.
   *]So why have written Gospels? The four gospels, are simply narratives of the life of Jesus. They don’t even claim to be the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. They only claim to be a narrative of the life of Jesus. Of course there are some teachings in them, but Scripture is salvation history. Scripture does NOT claim to be a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached.
   
   The apostles did not write down the Gospel they taught and preached because they were simply following the example of Jesus and the command of Jesus. Jesus never wrote down the Gospel He taught and preached. Thus, the apostles were mandated to follow the example of Jesus and they did not write the Gospel they taught and preached. And they were mandated to follow the command of Jesus who told them to teach and preach the Gospel. Jesus never told them to write the Gospel.
   
   But, how can we know their teachings if they were not written down. Well even an atheist can know the teachings of this Gospel, even though the apostles did not write it down, just as we can know the teachings of Socrates who wrote nothing.
   
   We simply learn what their followers believed, since their followers learned from them.
   
   Thus the Christians in the first, second, and third centuries wrote down much and practiced the religion they learned from the apostles. And as any student of early Christianity knows, the religion they followed and believed and wrote about was the Catholic faith.
   Thus, the Gospel the apostles taught and preached was the Catholic faith. But, how did the apostles teach and preach this Gospel, the Catholic faith, without writing? As Pope Paul VI taught in “Evangelization in the Modern World,” they would start off with the initial proclamation of the Gospel, which in extremely simplified form is that God created everything and everyone and out of love for us. He sent His son Jesus, to free us from the slavery of sin. The grace which He merited by His death and resurrection, which frees us from the slavery of sin is made available through the sacraments, but especially through the Eucharist. With this grace, we can be free from the compulsion to sin, thus be reconciled back to God, live holy lives, and transform society, and when we die, be with God forever in heaven. Of course the Trinity must be explained and much more basic teachings.
   If the non-Christian was interested in being freed from the slavery of sin (salvation) and interested in becoming Catholic, then Catechesis was the next step.
   
   In Catechesis, the whole Gospel would be taught. The apostles simply organized everything they learned from Jesus into teaching the 1. Articles of the Creed, 2. the Sacraments, 3.the Commandments and 4.prayer. And when they taught, they would use Scripture as a “witness” to their teachings, to “nourish” their teachings and to “illuminate” their teachings. This is how the Church uses scripture today. The Church does not use scripture as a proof of her teachings, or to justify her teachings or as the original source of her teachings. The source of her teachings was directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit, not scripture.
   
   Thus, Catechisms today are organized the same way.
   Creed, Sacraments, Commandments and prayer,
   In other words, **Catechisms are simply the Gospel that the apostles taught, after someone heard the initial proclamation and wanted to learn the whole Gospel. **
   
   That is why the Church says over and over, that the new Catechism proclaims the Gospel.
   
   Thus, the Catholic faith is the Gospel the apostles taught, the fullness of revelation that comes from Jesus, in whom are are hid “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” Col 2:3
   
   Thus, we all need to start of with the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached. Then we can understand salvation history, the bible. We can’t start off with salvation history, and then expect to learn the Gospel. The Gospel, which is the Catholic Faith and not scripture, contains the fullness of revelation that the apostles learned from Jesus and handed down by teaching, preaching, liturgy, example and practice.

 

[tukfryer]

I find it troubling that after Th0t’s friend gives such a witness to the message in scripture, that now the reply is to discredit his source, scripture.
That type of response I would expect from worldly men questioning the message contained in the bible.

 

[Ignatius33]

Th0t, a couple of comments in response to your friend’s thoughts:

1. I would like to expand a little bit on the primary Scriptural passage dealing with the authority of the Church to forgive sins: John 20:21-23. As mentioned, Jesus gave the following words to his apostles: “If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained” (John 20:23). At first, this verse seems unambiguously clear—and it is clear. But Protestants seem to evade its straightforward meaning by introducing their own novel theology of the sacraments. For many of the Reformers (e.g. Calvin), the sacraments were basically a form of preaching. The purpose of the sacraments is to proclaim the word; they are aids to faith. These Protestants therefore interpret Jesus’words in John 20:23, not as an authorization of the apostles to absolve sin, but rather as a commission for them to preach the gospel. D. A. Carson, in his commentary, defends the traditional Protestant view. First, he points out that “the context is the mission of Jesus’ disciples (v. 21).” This is certainly true; Jesus is commissioning his disciples. Next, Carson concludes “the focus is on evangelism.” Predictably, then, Carson cites another Protestant with whose view he agrees: the forgiveness of sins here “is simply the result of preaching the gospel, which either brings men to repent …] or leaves them unresponsive to the offer of forgiveness, which is the gospel, and so they are left in their sins.” We might summarize this exegesis as follows. On this interpretation, then, the words of Jesus, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” are reduced to this: “If you preach the gospel and people repent, their sins will be forgiven; if you preach the gospel and people do not repent, their sins will be retained.”

This interpretation seems to be a desperate attempt to evade plain meaning of the text. Perhaps the most obvious reason it is flawed is that Jesus is speaking about the personal, apostolic act of forgiveness. He says to the apostles, “If you forgive.” The apostles (“you”) are the subject of the verb “forgive.” Accordingly, Jesus is saying that whoever is forgiven by the apostles will be forgiven by God. But on the standard Protestant interpretation, the apostles are not the acting subjects who personally forgive others—they do not do any forgiving at all! Rather, they are simply preachers whose proclamation leads either to repentance or to hardening. Judge for yourself whether this reading is natural or is artificially imposed on the text. Relatedly, Jesus says to the apostles, “if you retain.” I’ve never seen a persuasive Protestant analysis for the use of the word “retain” here – it seems quite plain that Jesus is giving his apostles the authority to forgive or not forgive sin.

Another reason the Protestant interpretation is implausible (and this is the strongest reason) is that other passages of scripture speak of Christians being commissioned to forgive sins. Immediately the highly controversial passage in Matthew comes to mind: “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:17). The words “bind and loose” are traditionally taken by Catholics to mean “not-forgive and forgive.” No scholar of whom I am aware would deny that the words can have this meaning in Jewish usage and that some early Christians used the words “bind and loose” in a similar fashion. But what makes this interpretation almost certain in Matthew 18 is that, immediately after Jesus finishes his discourse, the text says, “Then Peter came up and said to him, ‘Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?’“ (Matthew 18:20). Notice that Peter is speaking about the forgiveness of sins. In reply, Jesus then tells a parable in which he says at one point, “the lord of that servant released = loosed] him and forgave him the debt.” (Matthew 18:26) As best as I can tell, in the Greek the word for “released” here is “loosed”—the same word used in v. 17 when Jesus spoke of the church as having the power to “bind and loose.” It is very reasonable, then, to interpret the passage like this: Jesus grants the church the power to loose from sin; Peter then asks how often the church should use this power to forgive; Jesus replies with a parable that makes clear that loosing from sin means forgiving sin, and stating that the Church should forgive indefinitely as long as people show signs of real repentance.

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

1. Your friend mentioned that the power of the keys mentioned in Matthew 16:19 is “common to all ministers.” I think the primary significance of the keys is quite different. Although Jesus gives the Twelve Apostles the authoritative power of binding and loosing (Matt. 18:18), He gives the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” (i.e., the keys to the Church) to Peter alone. Catholics believe that these keys connote primacy and authoritative teaching (e.g., infallibility), as well as the power of lifting or imposing an excommunication. Jesus’ bestowal of the keys to the kingdom of heaven on Peter is a clear allusion to Isaiah 22:20-22, where God gave a similar “key” to Eliakim, granting him authority as the chief steward of the kingdom of Israel, second in power only to the king himself. In Isaiah 22:22, God says: “I will place a key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.” Even if one wants to argue that the keys were implicitly given to the apostles in a secondary manner in Matthew 18:18, it seems clear enough that they were primarily given to Peter alone, as Jesus singled him out for this honor after Peter’s confession of faith (Matthew 16:16).

Aside from conveying the idea of authority, the imagery of keys also denotes both an office and a succession. In the old Davidic kingdom, when the chief steward – the key holder – died, a successor took over his role as the next steward. Given that the Gospel of Matthew repeatedly employs “kingdom” imagery, a first century Jewish audience would have readily understood Jesus’ bestowal of keys on Peter as an analogy to the passage in Isaiah. Indeed, inasmuch as the Old Testament merely prefigures the New and contains types and shadows of the better things to come, the office of chief steward can be seen as a mere foreshadowing or prefiguring of the pope’s role in the Church. The pope therefore functions as a sort of chief steward or prime minister in the restored Davidic kingdom, under the King who reigns in Heaven. It makes no sense to think that God gave Peter these keys, with all they entail, intending that they should be buried with Peter upon his death. God certainly foreknew that Jesus’ Second Coming would not occur immediately (even if the disciples didn’t realize it) and, therefore, it is no great leap to believe that He intended for Peter’s keys to be held by his successors, the bishops of Rome. Certainly, the Church would be in greater (not less) need of a physical leader to maintain the unity of the Church over the course of time, after the original Apostles were long gone.

1. I think the passage in Matthew 9:8 – indicating that God had given the authority to forgive sins to “men” – validly supports the Church’s power to forgive sins. True, when Jesus spoke these words the Church had not yet been established. But the inspired Gospel author wrote these words decades later, long after the Church had been established.
2. At bottom, Catholics and Protestants disagree on the proper meaning and interpretation of these passages (especially John 20:21-23, Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18). Even granting that the Protestant interpretation is reasonable, I find it unpersuasive because the early Church clearly followed the Catholic position. Early on, the Church believed that it had the authority to forgive sins. If this were a novel practice, one would expect that someone – whether some proto-Protestant or “pure”/uncorrupted Christian – would have fought against such a drastic “innovation” or “corruption” of the Gospel. Yet, there is no protest in the historical record. True, Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) – ever the rigorist – didn’t like the idea of frequent reconciliation (I believe he would have said that a Christian should have one chance and one chance alone to have his mortal sins forgiven after baptism), but even he did not deny the authority of the Church to forgive sins as it saw fit. In fact, the earliest denier of this power (of which I am aware) was the anti-pope Novatian (ca. 250 AD), whose followers (the Novatians or Novatianists) believed that the Church could not forgive mortal sins; rather, those in a state of mortal sin were to be excommunicated for life and were damned unless God chose to forgive them at the end of their lives. In contrast, we see that all the Church Fathers to speak on the issue, from Irenaeus to Augustine, believed that the Church had the authority to forgive sins.

Since the Catholic interpretation is both reasonable and squares with history (and is practiced by every pre-Reformation Church in the world, of which I am aware), I find it to be the more persuasive viewpoint.

 

[Ignatius33]

Here are some more patristic passages pertaining to the Sacrament of Penance/Confession/Reconciliation:

1. St. Ignatius of Antioch speaks of the mercy of God to sinners, provided they return “with one consent to the unity of Christ and the communion of the bishop.” He also says that “the bishop presides over penance” (Letter to the Philadelphians [ca. 105 AD]).
2. Pope St. Callistus: “I forgive the sins both of adultery and of fornication to those who have done penance” (Peremptory Edict [ca. 218-222 AD]).
3. Lactantius: “That is the true Church in which there is confession and penance, which applies a wholesome remedy to the sins and wounds whereunto the weakness of the flesh is subject” (Divine Institutes [304-310 AD]).
4. St. Athanasius: “As the man whom the priest baptizes is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Ghost, so does he who in penance confesses his sins, receive through the priest forgiveness in virtue of the grace of Christ” (Fragment Against Novatian [before 373 AD]).
5. St. Basil the Great: “As men do not make known their bodily ailments to anybody and everybody, but only to those who are skilled in healing, so confession of sin ought to be made to those who can cure it” (Reg. Brevior., 229 [before 397 AD]).
6. Apostolic Constitutions: “Grant him, O Lord almighty, through Thy Christ, the participation of Thy Holy Spirit, in order that he may have the power to remit sins according to Thy precept and Thy command, and to loosen every bond, whatsoever it be, according to the power which Thou hast granted to the Apostles” (ca. 400 AD).
7. St. Jerome, comparing the priests of the New Law with those of the Old who dealt with leprosy, says “likewise in the New Testament the bishops and the priests bind or loose . . . in virtue of their office, having heard various sorts of sinners, they know who is to be bound and who is to be loosed” (Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew [ca. 398 AD]).

Jerome also remarked: “let no one find it irksome to show his wound because without confession he cannot be healed” (Sermon on Penance [before 419 AD]).

1. Pope St. Innocent: “Regarding these *, the earlier practice was more severe, the later more tempered with mercy. The former custom was that penance should be granted, but Communion denied; for in those times persecutions were frequent, hence, lest the easy admission to Communion should fail to bring back from their evil ways men who were sure of reconciliation, very rightly Communion was refused, while penance was granted in order that the refusal might not be total . . . But after Our Lord had restored peace to his Churches, and terror had ceased, it was judged well that Communion be given the dying lest we should seem to follow the harshness and sternness of the heretic Novatian in denying pardon. Communion, therefore, shall be given at the last along with penance, that these men, if only in the supreme moment of death, may, with the permission of Our Savior, be rescued from eternal destruction” (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse [405 AD]).
2. Pope St. Celestine expressed horror at learning that “penance was refused the dying and that the desire of those was not granted who in the hour of death sought this remedy for their soul” – this, he says, is “adding death to death and killing with cruelty the soul that is not absolved” (Letter to the bishops of Vienne and Narbonne [428 AD]).
3. St Cyril of Alexandria: “Men filled with the spirit of God * forgive sins in two ways, either by admitting to baptism those who are worthy or by pardoning the penitent children of the Church” (In Joan. 1, 12 [before 444 AD]).
4. Pope St. Leo the Great forbids as an abuse “contrary to the Apostolic rule” the reading out in public of a written statement of their sins drawn up by the faithful because, he declares, “it suffices that the guilt of conscience be manifested to priests alone in secret confession” (Letter to the bishops of Campania [ca. 440-461 AD]).

In another epistle, after declaring that by Divine ordinance the mercy of God can be obtained only through the supplication of the priests, Leo adds: “the mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus, gave the rulers of the Church this power that they should impose penance on those who confess and admit them when purified by salutary satisfaction to the communion of the sacraments through the gateway of reconciliation” (Epistle to Theodore, Bishop of Rejus, no. 108 [442 AD]).

Again, Leo says: “Neither satisfaction is to be forbidden nor reconciliation denied to those who in time of need and imminent danger implore the aid of penance and then of reconciliation.” After pointing out that penance should not be deferred from day to day until the moment “when there is hardly space either for the confession of the penitent or his reconciliation by the priest,” he adds that even in these circumstances “the action of penance and the grace of communion should not be denied if asked for by the penitent” (id.).

1. Pope St. Gregory the Great teaches “the affliction of penance is efficacious in blotting out sins when it is enjoined by the sentence of the priest when the burden of it is decided by him in proportion to the offense after weighing the deeds of those who confess” (In I Reg., III, v, n.13 [before 604 AD]).**

 

[Th0t]

Thank you very much :] this is honestly helping me also!

I will update u all on what his replies will be.

Tukfryer: I find it troubling that after Th0t’s friend gives such a witness to the message in scripture, that now the reply is to discredit his source, scripture.
That type of response I would expect from worldly men questioning the message contained in the bible.

It’s not that were discrediting his source, of course we believe what the bible says, just not his interpretation.

If you wrote a book and someone else told u “This is what I believe it says…”, and u said “No that’s not at all what I meant by that…” and he said “Yes it does! I bought the book and I can interpret it how I want!”

Wouldn’t u feel very uncomfortable and disturbed maybe?

 

[Ignatius33]

Th0t, if you are interested, here is a more expansive collection of patristic passages addressing the sacrament of confession…

1. The Didache: “Confess your offenses in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life . . . On the Lord’s Day of the Lord * gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache [before 100 AD]).
2. St. Ignatius of Antioch speaks of the mercy of God to sinners, provided they return “with one consent to the unity of Christ and the communion of the bishop.” He also says that “the bishop presides over penance” (Letter to the Philadelphians [ca. 105 AD]).
3. St. Irenaeus: “[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women in our own district of the Rhone, by saying and doing such things. Their consciences branded as with a hot iron, some of these women make a public confession; but others are ashamed to do this, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies [ca. 180 AD]).
4. Tertullian, while still Catholic, referred to this sacrament as “the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace” (Repentance 203/204 AD).

Tertullian also addressed those who put off confessing their sin because they were ashamed: “mindful more of their shame than of their salvation, like those who hide from the physician the malady they suffer in the secret parts of the body, and thus perish through bashfulness . . . because we withhold anything from the knowledge of men, do we thereby conceal it from God? . . . Is it better to hide and be damned than to be openly absolved” (id.).

1. St. Hippolytus of Rome observed that bishops “by the Spirit of the high-priesthood have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” [Jn. 20:21-23] (The Apostolic Tradition [ca. 215 AD]).
2. Pope St. Callistus: “I forgive the sins both of adultery and of fornication to those who have done penance” (Peremptory Edict [ca. 218-222 AD]).
3. Origen noted that a Christian “does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine” (Homilies on Leviticus [after 244 AD]).

Origen further compares the sinner to those whose stomachs are overloaded with undigested food or with the excess of humours and phlegm if they vomit, they are relieved, “so, too, those who have sinned, if they conceal and keep the sin within, they are distressed and almost choked by its humour or phlegm. But if they accuse themselves and confess, they at the same time vomit the sin and cast off every cause of disease” (Homilies on the Psalms [240-242 AD]).

Origen goes on to say: “They who have sinned, if they hide and retain their sin within their breast, are grievously tormented; but if the sinner becomes his own accuser, while he does this, he discharges the cause of his malady. Only let him carefully consider to whom he should confess his sin; what is the character of the physician; if he be one who will be weak with the weak, who will weep with the sorrowful, and who understands the discipline of condolence and fellow-feeling. So that when his skill shall be known and his pity felt, you may follow what he shall advise. Should he think your disease to be such that it should be declared in the assembly of the faithful – whereby others may be edified, and yourself easily reformed – this must be done with much deliberation and the skillful advice of the physician” (id.).

1. St. Cyprian of Carthage: “Although you sent me a letter in which you ask that consideration be given your desire that, after the [Decian] persecution is over and we begin to gather together again and to meet together with the clergy, peace be then extended to the lapsed, those [aforementioned presbyters] have dared – contrary to the law of the gospel, contrary even to your respectful petition, before penance has been done, before a confession of the most grave and extreme sin has been made, before a hand has been imposed in penance by the bishop and the clergy – to offer on their behalf and to give them the Eucharist; that is, to profane the holy Body of the Lord, in spite of what is written: ‘Whosoever shall eat the Bread or drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord’” [1 Cor. 11:27] (Letter in Reply to Certain Martyrs and Confessors [250 AD]).

Cyprian also says: “Although for lesser sins it is required that sinners do penance for a just time, after which, according to the rule of discipline, they may come to confession and, through the imposition of hands by the bishop and clergy, may receive the right of communication, now, in an unpropitious time and while the persecution continues, when peace is not yet restored to the Church itself, they are being admitted to communication, and the offering is made in their name; and, not yet having made a confession of sin, not yet having had hands imposed upon them by the bishop and clergy, the Eucharist is given to them, in spite of what is written: ‘Whoever shall eat the Bread or drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord’” [1 Cor. 11:27] (Letter to Cyprian’s Clergy [250 AD]).

Elsewhere, Cyprian remarked that those who receive Holy Communion before confessing to a priest the sin of denying Christ to avoid persecution or death at the hands of the imperial Roman authorities “do violence to His Body and Blood; and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied Him” (The Lapsed [251 AD]).

Cyprian further observes: “If, however, someone among them shall have been found to be corrupted, let her do full penance, because she that has committed this crime is an adulteress not against a husband but against Christ. Therefore, at a time considered a just interval after she has made a confession of sin, let her return to the Church. But if they continue in their obstinacy and will not separate themselves from each other, let them know that because of such shameless obstinacy we can never admit them to the Church, lest by their sins they might begin to set an example for the ruination of others. Do not let them imagine that the way of life and of salvation is still open to them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and the priests” (Letter to Pomponius, Bishop of Dionysiana [ca. 250 AD]).

continued…*

 

[Ignatius33]

Again, Cyprian states: “We have read your letter, dearest brother, in which you indicated in regard to Victor, formerly a presbyter, that our colleague Therapius [Bishop of Bulla Minor] had rashly granted peace to him after an insufficient time and in headlong haste, before he had done full penance and before he had made satisfaction to the Lord God, against whom he had sinned. This matter disturbed us considerably, because it was a departure from the authority of our decree, in that peace was granted him before the full and lawful time of satisfaction, without the request nor even the awareness of the people, and with no pressing illness nor any compelling necessity . . . Still, we did not think that peace, once granted in whatever way by a priest of God, should be taken away; and for this reason we have allowed Victor to avail himself of the communion granted him” (Letter of Cyprian and his Colleagues in Council to the Number of Sixty-Six: To Fidus [251-252 AD]).

And again, Cyprian writes: “We think that no one should be held back from the fruit of satisfaction and from the hope of peace, since we know by our faith in the Divine Scriptures, of which God Himself is the author and initiator, both that sinners are brought back to repentance, and that pardon and forgiveness are not denied the penitent . . . And if, inasmuch as the Lord is merciful and kind, we find that none of those imploring and entreating His mercy should be prohibited from doing penance, then peace is able to be extended through His priests. The groans of those who mourn must be taken into account, and the fruit of repentance must not be denied to the sorrowful. And since among the dead there is no confession, nor in that place can a confession of sin be made, those who have repented from the bottom of their heart and have besought it, must after a time be received into the Church, to be preserved therein for the Lord” (Letter to Antonianus, Bishop of Numidia [251-252 AD]).

1. Lactantius: “That is the true Church in which there is confession and penance, which applies a wholesome remedy to the sins and wounds whereunto the weakness of the flesh is subject” (Divine Institutes [304-310 AD]).
2. Aphraates the Persian Sage: “You physicians *, then, who are the disciples of our illustrious Physician, you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us” (Treatises [inter 336-345 AD]).
3. St. Hilary of Poitiers: “[On Matthew 18:18] The power of binding and loosing given to the Apostles: In our present condition we are all subdued by the terror of that greatest dread *. And now, out in front of that terror, He sets the irrevocable apostolic judgment, however severe, so that those whom they shall bind on earth, that is, whomsoever they leave bound in the knots of their sins; and those whom they loose, which is to say, those who by their confession receive grace unto salvation – these, in accord with the apostolic sentence, are bound or loosed also in heaven” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [ca. 353-355 AD]).
4. St. Athanasius: “As the man whom the priest baptizes is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Ghost, so does he who in penance confesses his sins, receive through the priest forgiveness in virtue of the grace of Christ” (Fragment Against Novatian [before 373 AD]).
5. St. Epiphanius: “Just as one who has lost virginity has not the ability of regaining it physically, that being a physical impossibility, so too it is with those who fall into some great transgressions after Baptism; and just as one who falls from virginity can have the secondary honor of continence, so also one who commits transgressions of the graver kind after his Baptism has a secondary remedy *” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies [374/377 AD]).
6. St. John Chrysostom: “They who inhabit the earth, they who make their abode among men, are entrusted with the dispensation of the things of heaven! Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed’ [Matt. 18:18]. Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can bind only the body. Priests, however, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself, and transcends the very heavens. Whatever priests do here on earth, God will confirm in heaven, just as the master ratifies the decisions of his servants. Did He not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ He says, ‘they are forgiven them: whose sins you shall retain, they are retained’ [Jn. 20:23]. What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all the judgment to the Son [Jn. 5:22]. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven, elevated above human nature, and freed of its limitations . . . The priests of Judaism had power to cleanse the body from leprosy – or rather, not to cleanse it at all, but to declare a person as having been cleansed [Lev. 14:2-3]. And you know how much contention there was even in those times to obtain the priestly office. Our priests have received the power not of treating with the leprosy of the body, but with spiritual uncleanness; not of declaring cleansed, but of actually cleansing” (The Priesthood [after 386 AD]).

Chrysostom pleads with the sinner: “Be not ashamed to approach [the priest] because you have sinned, nay rather, for this very reason approach. No one says: ‘Because I have an ulcer, I will not go near a physician or take medicine’; on the contrary, it is just this that makes it needful to call in physicians and apply remedies. We [priests] know well how to pardon, because we ourselves are liable to sin. This is why God did not give us angels to be our doctors, nor send down Gabriel to rule the flock, but from the fold itself he chooses the shepherds, form among the sheep He appoints the leader, in order that he may be inclined to pardon his followers and, keeping in mind his own fault, may not set himself in hardness against the members of the flock” (Homily on Frequent Assembly [before 407 AD]).

continued…***

 

[Ignatius33]

1. Theodore of Mopsuestia: “If we commit a great sin against the commandments . . . we must first induce our conscience with all our power to make haste and repent our sins as is proper, and not permit ourselves any other medicine . . . This is the medicine for sins, established by God and delivered to the priests of the Church, who make diligent use of it in healing the afflictions of men. You are aware of these things, as also of the fact that God, because He greatly cares for us, gave us penitence and showed us the medicine of repentance; and He established some men, those who are priests, as physicians of sins. If in this world we receive through them healing and forgiveness of sins, we shall be delivered from the judgment that is to come. It behooves us, therefore, to draw near to the priests in great confidence and to reveal to them our sins; and those priests, with all diligence, solicitude and love, and in accord with the regulations mentioned above, will grant healing to sinners. [The priests] will not disclose the things that ought not be disclosed; rather, they will be silent about the things that have happened, as befits true and loving fathers who are bound to guard the shame of their children while striving to heal their bodies” (Catechetical Homilies [before 428 AD]).
2. St. Pacian of Barcelona: “Certainly God never threatens the repentant; rather, He pardons the penitent. You will say that it is God alone who can do this. True enough; but it is likewise true that He does it through His priests, who exercise His power. What else can it mean when He says to His Apostles: ‘Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven?’ [Matt. 16:19; Jn. 20:23]. Why should he say this if He were not permitting men to bind and to loose? Why, if He were permitting this to the Apostles alone? Were that the case, He would likewise be permitting them alone to baptize, them alone to Confer the Holy Spirit, them alone to cleanse the pagans of their sins; for all of these things are commissioned not to others but to the Apostles. But if the loosing of bonds and the power of the Sacrament is given to anyone in that place, either the whole is passed on to us from the form and power of the Apostles, or nothing of it can be imparted to us by whatever decrees . . . If, then, the power both of Baptism and Confirmation, greater by far than charisms, is passed on to the bishops, so too is the right of binding and of loosing . . . ‘Whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19; Jn. 20:23]. ‘Whatever you shall loose,’ He says; and He excepts absolutely nothing. ‘Whatever,’ He says: whether it be great or whether it be small” (Three Letters to the Novatianist Sympronian [inter 375-392 AD]).

Pacian also writes: “But what can he do who was contemptuous of God? What shall the murderer do? What remedy shall the fornicator find? . . . These are capital sins, brethren, these are mortal. Someone may say: ‘Are we then about to perish? . . . Are we to die in or sins?’ . . . I appeal first to you brethren who refuse penance for your acknowledged crimes: you, I say, who are timid after your impudence, who are bashful after your sins, who were not ashamed to sin but now are ashamed to confess . . . Remember that confession extinguishes hell for you” (Sermon Exhorting to Penance [before 392 AD]).

1. St. Basil the Great: “As men do not make known their bodily ailments to anybody and everybody, but only to those who are skilled in healing, so confession of sin ought to be made to those who can cure it” (Reg. Brevior., 229 [before 397 AD]).
2. Apostolic Constitutions: “Grant him, O Lord almighty, through Thy Christ, the participation of Thy Holy Spirit, in order that he may have the power to remit sins according to Thy precept and Thy command, and to loosen every bond, whatsoever it be, according to the power which Thou hast granted to the Apostles” (ca. 400 AD).
3. St. Jerome, comparing the priests of the New Law with those of the Old who dealt with leprosy, says “likewise in the New Testament the bishops and the priests bind or loose . . . in virtue of their office, having heard various sorts of sinners, they know who is to be bound and who is to be loosed” (Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew [ca. 398 AD]).

Jerome says: “If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound to his brother and to his master, then his brother and his master, who have the word that will cure him, cannot very well assist him. For if the sick man is ashamed to confess his wound to the physician, medicine will not cure that to which it is not applied” (Commentary on Ecclesiastes [ca. 388-389 AD]).

Jerome also remarks: “let no one find it irksome to show his wound because without confession he cannot be healed” (Sermon on Penance [before 419 AD]).

1. St. Ambrose of Milan: “Things that are impossible with men are possible with God. God is able, whenever He wills, to forgive us our sins, even those we think cannot be forgiven. Thus it is possible for God to give us what to us seems impossible to obtain. Now, it seemed impossible that sin should be washed away in water . . . But what was impossible was made possible by God, who gave us so great a grace. It seemed likewise impossible for sins to be forgiven through penance; yet Christ granted even this to His Apostles, and by His Apostles it has been transmitted to the offices of priests. That has been made possible, therefore, which seemed to be impossible” (Penance [387/390 AD]).

Ambrose rebukes the Novatianists who “professed to show reverence for the Lord by reserving to Him alone the power of forgiving sins. Greater wrong could not be done than what they do in seeking to rescind His commands and fling back the office He bestowed . . . The Church obeys Him in both respects, by binding sin and by loosing it; for the Lord willed that for both the power should be equal” (id.).

Ambrose makes clear that the power to forgive extends to all sins: “God makes no distinction; He promised mercy to all and to His priests He granted the authority to pardon without any exception” (id.).

continued…