Biblical Non-Catholic positon on confession question

[EricFilmer]

If the early Church held that after baptism you must confess your sins to a priest to obtain forgiveness…

Let me take a moment to point out that I never said that a person “must” confess to a priest in order to have his sins forgiven. According to Catholic teaching, the ordinary means for the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins is the sacrament of reconciliation (which involves a priest or bishop), but there are a variety of extraordinary means as well (such as perfect contrition, the sacrament of the anointing of the sick, and, in terms of specifically venial sins, prayer, fasting and works of charity, etc.).

 

[garysibio]

Gary, to begin with, I am sensing what seems to be contradictory statements on your end of things. I am not conclusively saying that you are being contradictory, only that this is what it appears to be from my viewpoint, so I invite you to provide some clarity. More specifically, in you stated that Jesus“gave priests the authority to forgive sins.” But in you said (in reference to the Didache not specifically stating that one confesses to a priest), “The very fact that it does not address these issues implies they were beliefs not held by the early Church or they were considered unimportant.” So how do these two proposed conclusions square with your first statement? In other words, if Jesus gave priests the authority to forgive sins, how could ancient Christians not hold that belief, or consider that belief to be unimportant?

In hindsight I can see where my statements would be confusing. Sometimes when I write things are clearer in my head and I leave out stuff that I assume the other person knows.

Here’s my thinking: Confession to a priest is an option. It’s there if you wish to avail yourself of it but it is not mandatory. My reasoning is that, if it were mandatory, it would have been included in the Didache. That confession to a priest is an option is based on John 20:23. As is often pointed out, Jesus would not have given the apostles this authority if He did not intend for them to use it. On the other hand, what seems to be missing - in the Bible and the Didache, at least - is anything telling the laity to go to the priests to confess their sins.

Of course the Didache is not the only document left us by the ECFs, but, given its catechetical role, I find its silence on this point particularly relevant. The Shepherd of Hermas does speak of confession but it is something that can only be received once in a person’s life. That being the case the communion lines at Mass were either incredibly short or there was another way your sins could be forgiven. There are probably other relevant texts and I’ve done a little looking but I have been incredibly busy lately and haven’t been able to look as much as I would like.

However, even if I were to find more relevant texts that contradicted my ideas I still have a problem. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, the ECFs are not infallible. Their writings can contain errors. How do I know which ECF got it right? While I don’t believe in sola scriptura, I still see the Bible as the final authority and I just don’t see a command to confess my sins to a priest in the Bible.

Yes they did. Whereas they did not have the large temple-like churches of the era of Constantine, they used what were called “house churches.” This is what the Didache is referring to when it says to confess “in church.”

Just because Mass was said in a house does not make that house a church any more than having someone over for dinner makes it a restaurant.

Second, the Didache does not say to confess in Church. It says that if you have an issue with someone, settle it before receiving the Eucharist. Although this may involve a sin, it does not have to. Someone could be mad at you about something that is not a sin.

Here is what the Didache specifically states on the matter (and I am using the translation from the Catholic University of America Press’ The Fathers of the Church: Vol. 1 – The Apostolic Fathers):

”You shall confess your offenses in church…” (Didache 4:14)

I see nothing in chapter 4 that matches your quote. Here’s the text I’ve been using.

”And on the Lord’s Day, after you have come together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, having first confessed your offenses, so that your sacrifice may be pure.” (Didache 14:1)

The Didache clearly says to confess “in church” as a preparation for receiving the Eucharist. Is a priest “in church”? Yes. Is a priest at Mass? Yes (his presence is, as you know, actually required). Therefore, clearly explain how an event described by the Didache as being “in church”, and in conjunction with the Mass, does not imply the presence of a priest.

Also, please tell me whether or not you think the presence of a priest is implied in the DIdache’s chapter 7 (on baptism) and chapter 9 (on the Eucharist).

The text (14:1) does not say to confess your sins to a priest or any other person, just to confess them. Yes, a priest would be present, so would many other people. We also know from The Shepherd of Hermas that confession was a once-in-a-lifetime thing at this time. Given that it would be impossible for the Didache to be referring to confessing to a priest in this passage.

Perhaps James 5:13-15 is relevant here. This passage ties in the confessing of sins with the presence of elders but is in the context of a serious illness.

No, my argument boils down to the fact that the presence of a priest is not mentioned in chapter 7 concerning baptism, nor in chapter 9 concerning the celebration of the Eucharist (which includes instructions on how to say the words of consecration). Obviously the presence of a priest is implied here (who else is supposed to say the words of consecration), so why not elsewhere?

That’s an argument from silence.

Ok, we both agree that the Didache is not all-inclusive.

Ok, so it seems that you are now saying that in terms of important catechetical material, the Didache does, indeed, need to be inclusive.

The Didache is not inclusive but it should include teaching on something as important as confession if that is what the Church believed. However, it includes many teachings that we would have to say are certainly less important to the Christian life. Just trying to make some sense of that.

 

[garysibio]

Based on this exact same line of reasoning, it can be proposed that the author of the Didache felt that the following things were not held by the early church or were considered unimportant (because he does not mention them):

1. Marriage
2. Confirmation
3. Anointing of the Sick
4. Ordination
5. Baptismal theology (that baptism cleanses us from sin and that the baptismal formula described in the Didache came from the instructions of Christ in the Great Commission)
6. Eucharistic theology (that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, that Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, and that participation in the Eucharist is a participation in the sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary)
7. The process of being fully initiated into the faith, including the reception of the three sacraments of initiation: baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist.
8. The Incarnation of Jesus.
9. Jesus’ fulfillment of the Old Testament messianic prophecies.
10. The baptism of Jesus and him being anointed by the Holy Spirit (after all, the word Messiah/Christ means “anointed one”, so emphasizing that Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit is essential information concerning his identity as the Messiah).
11. The passion and death of Christ and its significance in terms of soteriology, including information about Jesus as the Lamb of God, the fulfillment of the Passover.
12. The resurrection of Christ, and his risen and glorified body being witnessed by his disciples (which, according to the Acts of the Apostles, was the fundamental point of apostolic preaching).

I don’t have a good response to this point but it still doesn’t change the fact that confession to a priest is not mentioned. Some of the items on your list are theological considerations. I suspect that these are outside the purview of the Didache. I taught RCIA at my parish one year. We didn’t go into a lot of theology other than very basic stuff, but we did teach about the sacraments. It’s also possible that some of the other items you mention were not part of the early Church’s beliefs.

Here’s another theory: The author of the Didache does not specifically mention confessing sins to a priest because it was a commonly observed public practice in church and there were no substantial problems concerning it at the time of his writing. It is for this same kind of reason that some of the sacraments and other aspects of the Christian Faith were not mentioned in either the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed. For example, the Eucharist was not mentioned in either of the creeds. Obvious, the Eucharist was considered very important by the early Christians, but, unlike the topic of the divine nature of Jesus, there weren’t any major issues concerning it that the councils felt the need to address. The same sort of mentality could just as easily have been the motivation for the author of the Didache leaving out certain information.

In light of this, I can theorize that during the time of the writing of the Didache, there were problems regarding the treatment of itinerant prophets, so he addressed it. It is for reasons such as this that he may have felt compelled to write the Didache in the first place.

Because the role of the Didache could have simply been to address issues of its day. If it was common practice to confess sins publically in church and then be absolved by a priest, why go into detail about it? He didn’t go into detail about any of the other sacraments, so why expect him to go into detail about confession? Obviously, it was not his intention to give detailed descriptions of any of the sacraments.

The word “didache” means teaching. The longer name of the book is “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” Nothing about this indicates to me that it was written to address issues in the Church. Compare it to 1 Clement or any of the biblical epistles that were written to address a particular problem. They state the problem and then say this is what you should do. Problem, then solution. The Didache is not written in that matter. It is a handbook to the basic teaching of the Church, the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles. It does not mention any problems.

 

[pablope]

In hindsight I can see where my statements would be confusing. Sometimes when I write things are clearer in my head and I leave out stuff that I assume the other person knows.

Here’s my thinking: Confession to a priest is an option. It’s there if you wish to avail yourself of it but it is not mandatory. My reasoning is that, if it were mandatory, it would have been included in the Didache. That confession to a priest is an option is based on John 20:23. As is often pointed out, Jesus would not have given the apostles this authority if He did not intend for them to use it. On the other hand, what seems to be missing - in the Bible and the Didache, at least - is anything telling the laity to go to the priests to confess their sins.

The Didache is not inclusive but it should include teaching on something as important as confession if that is what the Church believed. However, it includes many teachings that we would have to say are certainly less important to the Christian life. Just trying to make some sense of that.

Gary,

Have you looked at how the Jews had their sins forgiven in the OT? In Leviticus, I think at around chapter 5, Jews had to offer animal sacrifies through the Temple priests.

Since the OT is a forerunner of what we have in the NT, priests have always been required.

If you have not, I would recommend Scott Hahn’s Lord Have Mercy for further reading, his treatment of the sacrament in depth from the OT to the NT, early Christan history and how it is practiced today.

Perhaps, what you are speaking of is how the practice has evolved, instead of what has changed doctrinally/dogmatically.

Anyway, just my two cents worth.

 

[garysibio]

Gary,

Have you looked at how the Jews had their sins forgiven in the OT? In Leviticus, I think at around chapter 5, Jews had to offer animal sacrifies through the Temple priests.

Since the OT is a forerunner of what we have in the NT, priests have always been required.

If you have not, I would recommend Scott Hahn’s Lord Have Mercy for further reading, his treatment of the sacrament in depth from the OT to the NT, early Christan history and how it is practiced today.

Perhaps, what you are speaking of is how the practice has evolved, instead of what has changed doctrinally/dogmatically.

Anyway, just my two cents worth.

Following your logic I should have to provide the priest with a goat as well.

Take a look at 2 Sam 12 and Ps 51. No priest there.

 

[EricFilmer]

Gary, in this post I want to simply focus on the idea of a church building among ancient Christians, and hopefully settle at least this aspect of our conversation. I will address your other recent comments later.

Just because Mass was said in a house does not make that house a church any more than having someone over for dinner makes it a restaurant.

But if you set up a large dining room in your house and invite the public to come in and order off a menu, then your house is a restaurant. The ancient Christians gathered in houses that were specified for the use of being the gathering places for the celebration of the sacraments. They even dug baptismal pools in these places. These were houses specifically built to serve as churches for the ancient Christians, or pre-existing houses that were transformed into the same.

Second, the Didache does not say to confess in Church.

Yes it does, but I’ll elaborate on that in a moment.

It says that if you have an issue with someone, settle it before receiving the Eucharist. Although this may involve a sin, it does not have to. Someone could be mad at you about something that is not a sin.

According to the linked translation of the Didache you are using, the text of chapter 14 states “…after having confessed your transgressions”. Some other translations use the word “sins” rather than “transgressions” but the meaning is the same. Even though someone may be mad at me about something that is not a sin, I have not committed a sin or transgression in such cases. The Didache is specifically referring to sins we are guilty of committing.

I see nothing in chapter 4 that matches your quote. Here’s the text I’ve been using.

It’s there so you must have simply overlooked it (the problem with the linked translation you used is that it does not have verse numbers, making it harder to p(name removed by moderator)oint cited passages). Going to that linked translation, you’ll see that chapter 4 ends with the following two sentences:

In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life.

 

[pablope]

Following your logic I should have to provide the priest with a goat as well.

Take a look at 2 Sam 12 and Ps 51. No priest there.

Gary…2sam 12…Nathan was a prophet…send by God…from v1…1And the LORD sent Nathan to David. Nathan spoke for God.

ie…Catholic priests today are sent or chosen by God, same as the apostles and their successors.

Ps 51…as I said previously, David’s confession came first before psalm 51…he had confessed to Nathan…and Nathan pronouncing absolution…13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has [h]taken away your sin; you shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”

Then…David says this…16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.

This is the context of ps 51…david’s fasting to save his son.

I should have to provide the priest with a goat as well.

Huh??? What does a goat have to do now? I strongly recommend you get a holdl of Hahn’s Lord Have Mercy…it explains the connection of the animal sacrifices to today’s sacrament.

 

[garysibio]

This thread is just getting more and more absurd and argumentative, not something I want to engage in, especially at Christmas time. I hope everyone has a blessed Christmas.

 

[maryj]

I didn’t mention Hermas to quote doctrine. I simply wanted to show that, in the earliest days of the Church. confession was a one-time sacrament. If that’s a doctrine then you have a problem because it means the Church changed a doctrine.

The church does not change Doctrine, it is developed.

 

[EricFilmer]

Here’s my thinking: Confession to a priest is an option. It’s there if you wish to avail yourself of it but it is not mandatory. My reasoning is that, if it were mandatory, it would have been included in the Didache. That confession to a priest is an option is based on John 20:23. As is often pointed out, Jesus would not have given the apostles this authority if He did not intend for them to use it. On the other hand, what seems to be missing - in the Bible and the Didache, at least - is anything telling the laity to go to the priests to confess their sins.

I’m still not sure what the issue is that you are trying to address. As I stated before, the Church teaches that God forgives sins in a variety of ways, some of which do not require a priest. But what is your position concerning sacramental methods used by ancient Christians for the absolution of post-baptismal sins? In other words, in the case of confession specifically done as a sacrament (and, as a side note, I agree that there can be non-sacramental confession), and the Anointing of the Sick, would you say that a priest’s involvement was mandatory?

Of course the Didache is not the only document left us by the ECFs, but, given its catechetical role, I find its silence on this point particularly relevant. The Shepherd of Hermas does speak of confession but it is something that can only be received once in a person’s life. That being the case the communion lines at Mass were either incredibly short or there was another way your sins could be forgiven.

As I have stated before, the Church has always taught that there are, indeed, other ways that sin can be forgiven.

However, even if I were to find more relevant texts that contradicted my ideas I still have a problem. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, the ECFs are not infallible. Their writings can contain errors. How do I know which ECF got it right? While I don’t believe in sola scriptura, I still see the Bible as the final authority and I just don’t see a command to confess my sins to a priest in the Bible.

Seeing as we are both Catholics and therefore have recourse to Sacred Tradition, why is this an issue?

And exactly why do you believe that the Bible is the “final authority”?

The text (14:1) does not say to confess your sins to a priest or any other person, just to confess them. Yes, a priest would be present, so would many other people. We also know from The Shepherd of Hermas that confession was a once-in-a-lifetime thing at this time. Given that it would be impossible for the Didache to be referring to confessing to a priest in this passage.

As you said above, we don’t know the accuracy of the Shepherd of Hermas’ description of historical practices. I have heard Christian historians refer to the once-in-a-lifetime aspect of sacramental Confession as well, but I haven’t checked the actual documentation that serves as a foundation for these assertions. It could be that these scholars are drawing conclusions based upon scant historical evidence.

But maybe it would be helpful to envision an actual scenario in the ancient Church. We both agree that the common practice was for people to make public confessions. Let us say that a man goes to the house-church and, in preparation for the reception of the Eucharist, confesses his sins in front of the assembly. Moreover, let us say that he only has venial sins to confess. In that case, there is no need for absolution from a priest. The priest may be present in the assembly, and the priest may simply assure the penitent of the mercy of God, but does not need to act in a sacramental capacity.

But let us say that the man confesses a mortal sin. Just as the confession was done in public, so could the absolution. At this point the priest could act in a sacramental capacity: giving the man a penance, laying his hands over his head, and speaking the words of absolution.

If we go with the theory that sacramental confession was a once-in-a-lifetime event, then the man, of course, would have the choice to inform the priest in advance that he wants to use this moment to take advantage of it.

With this kind of scenario in mind, I can see why the Didache spoke about confession in general terms, without specifically mentioning the act of confessing sins to a priest.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Perhaps James 5:13-15 is relevant here. This passage ties in the confessing of sins with the presence of elders but is in the context of a serious illness.

I’m not sure what your point is here. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit further.

That’s an argument from silence.

First of all, it is not an argument from silence. An objective examination of the entire Didache shows:

1. …that the author does not give details concerning the practice of any of the sacraments.
2. …that the author obviously presumes the reader is aware of the role of the priest in chapter 7 concerning the rite of baptism (including the assigning of fasting obligations) and chapter 9 concerning the celebration of the Eucharist (including speaking the words of consecration).

Based on these two facts, I can theorize that he may have likewise presumed that the reader is aware of the role of the priest in sacramental confession. If you feel that I have based this deduction upon an argument from silence, or any other fallacious reasoning, then I ask you to clearly explain how I did it (while illustrating it with actual quotes I made).

Secondly, you didn’t answer my question. Once again, if the author does not mention the presence of a priest when describing baptism and the Eucharist, why is it necessary for him to mention the presence of a priest when describing confession?

The Didache is not inclusive but it should include teaching on something as important as confession if that is what the Church believed.

You keep saying this, and have yet to give a sufficient explanation as to why. Teachings concerning confession are, indeed, important, but not more important than, say, fundamental baptism theology and the role of Christ as the Messiah. And yet these are not mentioned either. Confession allows for the forgiveness of sins committed after baptism, but the Didache never teaches that the primary method that God forgives sins is through baptism itself. Obviously the author never intended for the Didache to give a full description of how sins are forgiven through the sacraments. So why demand it of him concerning confession specifically?

However, it includes many teachings that we would have to say are certainly less important to the Christian life. Just trying to make some sense of that.

Once again, you are presuming that the author was motivated to record all the things he felt were important concerning Christianity. And yet, as I have demonstrated, a review of the document itself shows that lots of essential aspects of the Christian Faith were excluded. You have also admitted that he chose to include a number of less important teachings. Hence, the intention of the author was obviously not to record all the things he felt were important concerning Christianity. If he wrote about a lot of lesser important things, and omitted a lot of essential, fundamental teachings, what other conclusion can there possibly be? In light of all this, I will state once more that the intention of the author was to address certain aspects of the Christian Faith that he felt people of his generation needed to know, or be reminded of, for whatever reason.

 

[EricFilmer]

I don’t have a good response to this point…

May I suggest that a good response would be to simply agree that the Didache, while containing some catechetical material, was not written to be a full catechism? In Post #48 you stated that this thread was getting “more and more absurd and argumentative”, presumably as a criticism of me and a couple of others. How do you label your own seeming unwillingness to concede an obvious point?

…but it still doesn’t change the fact that confession to a priest is not mentioned.

And your statement still does not change the fact that a priest is not mentioned in either chapter 7 or chapter 9. I have asked you a number of times to clearly explain why the Didache has to specify the presence of a priest in terms of sacramental confession if it does not in the chapters describing baptism and the Eucharist. This is a perfectly reasonable and valid question, and you have yet to sufficiently address it.

Some of the items on your list are theological considerations. I suspect that these are outside the purview of the Didache.

Let us take a moment to go through my list from Post # 39 again, which I will reprint here in blue text:

1. Marriage
2. Confirmation
3. Anointing of the Sick
4. Ordination
5. Baptismal theology (that baptism cleanses us from sin and that the baptismal formula described in the Didache came from the instructions of Christ in the Great Commission)
6. Eucharistic theology (that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, that Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, and that participation in the Eucharist is a participation in the sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary)
7. The process of being fully initiated into the faith, including the reception of the three sacraments of initiation: baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist.
8. The Incarnation of Jesus.
9. Jesus’ fulfillment of the Old Testament messianic prophecies.
10. The baptism of Jesus and him being anointed by the Holy Spirit (after all, the word Messiah/Christ means “anointed one”, so emphasizing that Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit is essential information concerning his identity as the Messiah).
11. The passion and death of Christ and its significance in terms of soteriology, including information about Jesus as the Lamb of God, the fulfillment of the Passover.
12. The resurrection of Christ, and his risen and glorified body being witnessed by his disciples (which, according to the Acts of the Apostles, was the fundamental point of apostolic preaching).

Exactly which of these points do you feel does not need to be taught to catechumens before they become fully initiated into the Catholic Church? In other words, if (as you say) the intention of the author of the Didache was to write a full catechism for catechumens to use, which of these do you personally feel do not need to be included within the Didache’s purview? And then please explain to me a theory as to why the author would have felt compelled to exclude all of them.

I taught RCIA at my parish one year. We didn’t go into a lot of theology other than very basic stuff, but we did teach about the sacraments.

So you acknowledge that teaching about all the sacraments is a fundamental part of RCIA, but of the seven sacraments the Didache only specifically addresses two: baptism and the Eucharist. And even here, there is no baptismal theology (for example, he does not teach what baptism actually does) nor is there Eucharistic theology (for example, he does not teach what the Eucharist specifically is, why we are to partake of it, how it is a participation in the sacrifice of Calvary, etc.). Instead, all the Didache teaches concerning baptism and the Eucharist are certain aspects of the rites concerning this. In light of all this, how can you continue to state that the catechism was intended to be a full catechism? Had you taught RCIA in the first century, you could not have used the Didache as your only teaching resource.

It’s also possible that some of the other items you mention were not part of the early Church’s beliefs.

Glancing back through the list of 12 items I highlighted, I see that they are all doctrinal, and therefore stemming from the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. Exactly which ones do you theorize could possibly not have been part of the early Church’s beliefs?

The word “didache” means teaching. The longer name of the book is “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” Nothing about this indicates to me that it was written to address issues in the Church. Compare it to 1 Clement or any of the biblical epistles that were written to address a particular problem. They state the problem and then say this is what you should do. Problem, then solution. The Didache is not written in that matter. It is a handbook to the basic teaching of the Church, the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles. It does not mention any problems.

The author may have included information concerning the treatment of prophets for a variety of reasons. Perhaps there was mistreatment of prophets in the Christian communities at the time. Or perhaps there was no mistreatment, but just a lack of knowledge as to how to treat them, seeing as the Scriptures did not address this.

Moreover, how can you say that the author of the Didache was not addressing problems? The discourse in Chapter 11 involving the treatment of prophets instructs people what to do if a “wicked person comes and teaches another doctrine”, and how to discern whether or not a person is a false prophet. Aren’t wicked people and false prophets problems for a Christian community?

 

[EricFilmer]

I hope everyone has a blessed Christmas.

And I wish you the same, Gary. I am honestly not trying to be argumentative; I simply disagree with a number of aspects of your material in this particular thread and am trying to address them within what I feel is a framework of valid debate.

As a side note, I am a bit of a photo buff, and I sincerely like your linked photo album. I think Bond Falls is my favorite, and the I especially like the various winter scenes at North Park as well.