Biblical Non-Catholic positon on confession question

[EricFilmer]

I guess the thread is over. :tiphat:

Not quite.

We can? We can? WE can??? More fallacious assertions.

Really?

1) James is an Apostle.
2) According to John 20:23, James is given the ability by Christ to forgive or retain sins.
3) In James 5:16, James tells people to confess their sins to one another (James 5:16).
4) Immediately after stating that, James wrote that that the prayers of a righteous man are powerful in their effects (also found in James 5:16).
5) Such statements in his letter would natural motivate Christians to confess their sins to James (and other people as well, but certainly to him). After all, he wrote this as a Christian instruction and, being an Apostle, he would have been deemed by others as a righteous man.
6) After people confessed their sins to James, what would he do? Would he say, “Ok, thanks for sharing?” No, he would tell them that their sins are either forgiven or retained (due to John 20:23).

I challenge you to clearly explain the fallacy within this line of reasoning, and where it occurs in the above list. For example, if you decide to use logical formulas or fallacy formulas to address my material then I expect you to plug my actual statements into those formulas.

Circular reasoning. Assumes the conclusion in the premise. Of course you don’t realize you’re doing, and you’ll deny it, but hey, you are doing it.

Then clearly explain how. If you accuse me of fallacious argument then do me the common courtesy of demonstrating it. In other words, identity what you deem to be my premise and then show how I fallaciously assumed it in the conclusion. Until you do that, you are simply resorting to false accusations of fallacy in order to avoid addressing the actual line of reasoning I used (because you are unable to refute it in a manner displaying intellectual honesty).

Appeal to Tradition fallacy**: “We’ve used appeal to tradition for centuries, how could it possibly be wrong?”**

How could what be wrong? Once again, you’re not being very clear. Are you referring to the appeal itself? Well, a non-Christian could say the same thing about the Bible, couldn’t he? For example: Appeal to Sacred Scripture Fallacy – “We’ve used appeal to Scripture for centuries, how could it possibly be wrong?” Does that invalidate the process of appealing to Scripture? Obviously not. So why does it invalidate the process of appealing to Sacred Tradition?

Or perhaps you meant to say, “…how could it (Sacred Tradition) possibly be wrong?” In that case…

Was Sacred Tradition wrong when it helped formulate the canon of Scripture? The Bible does not tell us what books belong in the Bible. Can you tell me why the specific books in the Bible belong in the Bible, but not books such as the Book of Enoch and the Gospel of Thomas, without resorting to Sacred Tradition? If you think you can then (to avoid this thread from getting off-topic) I invite you to start a new thread in response, and I will continue the discussion there.

Was Sacred Tradition wrong when it helped define the various aspects of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity beyond what Scripture teaches? Can you show me in the Bible where it says that God exists as a Trinity? Can you explain how the Holy Spirit is a divine person who is fully united and at the same time fully distinct from the Father and the Son without appealing to Sacred Tradition? Once again, if you think you can then I invite you to start a new thread in response.

Was Sacred Tradition wrong when it gave Christians permission to change the observance of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? After all, that is not found anywhere in the Bible. Can you justify a Christian working on Saturday while observing Sunday as a day of worship and rest without appealing to Sacred Tradition? If so, then start a new thread and we can hash it out.

It seems to me that all Christians appeal to Sacred Tradition, one way or another, it’s just a question as to which ones, and whether or not a person is willing to admit it.

On a side note, if you are an adherent of Sola Scriptura, then you are appealing to something that is a man-made tradition as the foundation for determining doctrinal validity.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Oh boy. This kind of thinking is…probably not going to be worth the effort.

Well I’ll see how you respond, and then I’ll make a final decision.

You don’t seem to be interested in putting much effort into your responses in any regard. But here is my response nonetheless…

To set a sort of foundation to what I am about to post, I want to elaborate a bit on the specific three branches of Christianity known as Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Although there are several Churches/branches of them today, each has origins in one of the following apostolic sees, or apostolic missions:

Rome (Saints Peter and Paul)
Constantinople (St. Andrew)
Alexandria (St. Mark the Evangelist)
Antioch, in present-day Turkey (St. Peter).
Jerusalem (Saints Peter and James)
Archdiocese of Athens (St. Paul)
Ephesus, in present-day Turkey (St. John the Apostle)
Seleucia-Ctesiphon, in present-day Iraq (Saints Thomas the Apostle, Bartholomew the Apostle, and Thaddeus of Edessa)
Aquileia, in northeastern Italy (St. Mark the Evangelist)
See of Milan, in northwestern Italy (St. Barnabas the Apostle)
See of Syracuse, in Sicily (St. Peter)
Philippi, in Greece (St. Paul)
Thessaloniki, in Greece (St. Paul)
Corinth, in Greece (St. Paul)
Malta (St. Paul)
Paphos, in Cyprus (Saints Paul and Barnabas)
Armenian Apostolic Church (Saints Thaddeaus [St. Jude] and Bartholomew the Apostle)
Saint Thomas Christians (St. Thomas)

So we are talking about ancient Christian Churches initially spread out over three continents. All of these Churches have taught and still teach the following:

1) God gave us Public Revelation through both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (which Orthodox Christians more commonly refer to, in English, as Holy Tradition).
2) The Sacrament of Reconciliation is a Doctrine of the Faith, derived from both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
3) Bishops are the successors of the Twelve Apostles.
4) The Sacrament of Reconciliation involves confessing sins to a bishop or priest who is, in turn, empowered by God to forgive or retain the sins confessed.

For example…

Catholic Teaching
It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament. In a profound sense it is also a “confession” - acknowledgment and praise - of the holiness of God and of his mercy toward sinful man.
It is called the sacrament of forgiveness, since by the priest’s sacramental absolution God grants the penitent “pardon and peace.” It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation, because it imparts to the sinner the love of God who reconciles: “Be reconciled to God.” He who lives by God’s merciful love is ready to respond to the Lord’s call: “Go; first be reconciled to your brother.” (CCC #1424)

Since Christ entrusted to his apostles the ministry of reconciliation, bishops who are their successors, and priests, the bishops’ collaborators, continue to exercise this ministry. Indeed bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (CCC #1461)

Eastern Orthodox Teaching
The Lord Jesus Christ after His glorious Resurrection, when He appeared to His Disciples gave the command that: “Who’s ever sins you forgive they are forgiven in heaven, who’s ever sins you retain on this earth are retained in heaven.” He has given this great order to His Disciples after His resurrection and by so doing He introduced the confession which was practiced even during the time of Saint John the Baptist.

… The priest or the bishop, as His representative on earth, through his ordination, prayers to God for the salvation of the servant of God who really repented of his / her sins and God forgives the sins through the priest. Not the priest but God through the priests’ prayer forgives.
Dependent upon the sin committed , the priest has the right to forbid a sinner from receiving communion for a time, as a time of real repentance. Every priest has the right to forgive and retain through God the sins of the faithful, who are coming to Confession, but every priest cannot listen to Confessions, they have to be appointed by the local Bishop, they should be trained in the practice and in the spiritual life.
(Source: St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church: The Sacrament of Holy Confession)

Oriental Orthodox Teaching
The Sacrament of Repentance and Confession is a holy sacrament, by which the sinner returns to God, confessing his sins before the priest to be absolved by the priest through the authority granted to him by God. By this absolution the confessing person is granted the forgiveness of those sins which he confessed.
(Source: Coptic Orthodox Church Network: Sacrament of Penance and Confession)

(Continued in my next post)

 

[pablope]

I want to thank everyone who has participated in this tread to this point! From what I’ve read here I think my theory is pretty good. It seems that the non-Catholic argument for confession without a priest using scripture is pretty weak. I’m going to continue to dig on this subject. I enjoy reading your debates. I still have a lot to learn about the bible so this discussion has helped.

I recalled something…Psalm 51…the Misere…King David’s psalm.

Anyway, look at 2Sam12…where david is confronted by Nathan, confesses and is absolved by Nathan. David’s confession came first…then he wrote Psalm 51. Not the other way around.

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued from Post 22…)

Historically speaking, a notable amount of friction has existed between these three branches of Christianity, stemming from cultural differences, certain theological definitions, and the topic as to what constitutes a valid ecumenical council. Simply put, unfortunately these three branches of Christianity have not been “Best Friends Forever” with one another.

Nevertheless, these three branches of Christianity have always had a broad spectrum of agreement over doctrinal issues. There is not complete agreement, but a very high degree of agreement. Objectively speaking, there is certainly something to be said for a Christian doctrine which the Catholic Church, all the various Eastern Orthodox Churches and all the various Oriental Orthodox Churches define in the exact same way. This gives a considerable amount of weight towards the concept that the doctrine in question is truly part of initial apostolic teaching, and not an invention of one particular Church. For example, if, say, the Catholic Church fabricated the doctrines concerning sacramental confession, then there is no reason to believe that all the various Eastern Orthodox Churches and all the various Oriental Orthodox Churches would have played along as well. As a matter-of-fact, a theory suggesting that the development of the doctrines concerning sacramental confession resulted from a heretical conspiracy within the ancient Church that managed to get total support from all the apostolic Churches spread out over three continents is absurd.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Eric makes some great points. I would also add that Paul specifically states he is an ambassador of Christ and that the ministry of reconciliation was given to him. This shows that Paul holds an office within the Church which has the authority to dispense the sacrament of reconciliation in where he forgives sins in the person of Jesus Christ. This authority was given to the Apostles by Christ Himself and since Paul wasn’t an Apostle at the time Christ did this we can conclude that those who are ordained into this office are therefore given the authority to forgive or retain sins just like the first Apostles were given. This would then mean when we confess to each other, one of us must hold an office which has the authority to hear our confession.

@OP: Since venial sins can be forgiven by praying to God directly I would give them this passage from Sacred Scripture. [bibledrb]Matt 6:9-13[/bibledrb]

The Church also teaches that one Our Father has the power to wipe away all venial sins for the day if it is said devoutly and with true contrition and a firm purpose of amendment.

God Bless.

 

[Nicea325]

No offense,but your relative apparently has not the Bible enough. Here just a small portion from the OT:

It is GOD who forgives sins, and once forgiven, He ceases to remember them.

Isaiah 43:25, “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.”
It is God only who forgives sins.

Jeremiah 31:34, “…for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Ezechiel 18:22, “I will not remember all his iniquities that he has done.”

---

GOD uses His priests as His instruments of reconciliation. The New Covenant priesthood is prefigured or ‘typed’ in many places in the Old Testament. Here are several examples from the Old Testament of reconciliation and atonement being performed by a priest:

Leviticus 4:20, “…Thus the priest shall make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven.”

Leviticus 4:26, “Thus the priest shall make atonement for the prince’s sin, and it will be forgiven.”

Leviticus 4:32, “Thus the priest shall make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.”

Leviticus 4:35, “Thus the priest shall make atonement for the man’s sin, and it will be forgiven.”

Leviticus 5:5-6, “…then whoever is guilty in any of these cases shall confess the sin he has incurred, and as his sin offering for his sin he has committed he shall bring to the Lord a female animal from the flock, a ewe lamb or a she-goat. The priest shall then make atonement for his sin.”
See also Leviticus 5:10,13,16,18, 12:8, 14:18-20,31, 15:15,30, 19:22.

Leviticus 6:7, “And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord; and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he has done in trespassing therein.”

Leviticus 7:7, “Because the sin offering and the guilt offering are alike, both having the same ritual, the guilt offering likewise belongs to the priest who makes atonement with it.”

Leviticus 16:32, “This atonement is to be made by the priest who has been anointed and ordained to the priesthood in succession to his father.”

Leviticus 19:20-22, “If a man lies carnally with a woman . . . they shall not be put to death . . . but he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord, to the door of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him . . . before the Lord for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him.”

Numbers 6:11, “The priest shall offer up the one as a sin offering and the other as a holocaust, thus making atonement for him for the sin he has committed by reason of the dead person.”

Numbers 15:25, “And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them…”

Numbers 15:28, “And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for him who sinned inadvertently; when atonement has been made for him, he will be forgiven.”

The prophets in the Old Testament spoke in GOD’s Name, in the first person. Here are examples…

Deuteronomy 18:18-19, “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kinsmen, and will put My words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I commanded him. If any man will not listen to My words which he speaks in My name, I Myself will make him answer for it.”

Ezekiel 3:4, “And He said to me: Son of man, go to the house of Israel, and you shall speak My words to them.”

The priest has been given the ministry of reconciliation. He mediates GOD’s forgiveness to the sinner. The priest is merely an instrument of GOD. As an analogy, think of GOD as the Supreme Healer, the Master Surgeon. He will remove the cancer of sin from the soul, while using one of His priests as the scalpel.

Clearly, the Apostles were given the authority to remit sins, or to bind them, in the person
The Apostles obviously would not live forever, and sin will always be with us, so they passed the authority on to others.

Why do we go to confession? What is the real reason?
We go to meet Christ…

 

[garysibio]

Okay, I’m looking for some help in an on-going debate that I”m having with an Anti-Catholic relative. I’m looking for scripture that supports the Non-Catholic position on confessing sins. I’m aware that the catechism states that we can pray straight to God under certain conditions and with a perfect act of contrition. However, my protestant relatives state that “you don’t need the Church for forgiveness of sins”. I’m aware of many Catholic scriptures that support the Sacrament of Confession. But when I asked for biblical evidence which supports going straight to God to confess the response I got was “l’ll get back with you”.

I’ve been doing some scripture searching of my own. The only passage that I find that is close to supporting the Non-Catholic position is Mark 11:25

Mark 11:25
“Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgression”

But I’m not sure this passage explicitly states or implies that we can confess straight to God. This passage seems to be saying that we need to forgive others in order to receive forgiveness from God. This is echoed in other spots in the bible.

Can anyone explain the biblical arguments that Non-Catholics make to support their claim of going straight to God to confess their sins? Would the Lord’s Prayer be their proof text for their position? I want to be prepared for the responses that I may get. Is their position biblical or is this a tradition of men that they have accepted?

Thanks in advance!

I’m going to get blasted for this but I noticed recently that the Didache nowhere mentions confessing sins to a priest. Why is this important? The Didache was written to be a catechesis manual for new converts to the Church. If any early Church document hould have addressed this practice, the Didache would be it.

 

[EricFilmer]

I’m going to get blasted for this but I noticed recently that the Didache nowhere mentions confessing sins to a priest. Why is this important? The Didache was written to be a catechesis manual for new converts to the Church. If any early Church document hould have addressed this practice, the Didache would be it.

Well, it’s not my intention to do any real blasting, but I will point out that the Didache, like the NT, was designed to be a companion for catechetical instruction, but not an exhaustive resource of the same. In the ancient Church, full initiation into the Church took three years, so there was plenty of time for both written and oral instructions. It is worth noting that neither the NT nor the Didache claims to provide the totality of catechetical material. There are doctrinal issues not found in the Didache (such as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity) and not all sacraments are even addressed (unless I am mistaken, the Anointing of the Sick and Marriage are not mentioned). This tells me that the Didache was designed to address only some aspects of the Christian Faith as opposed to all aspects.

Consider the fact that the Didache is a fairly brief document, and it was probably intended to be so in order to make it a more portable for missionaries. In addition to providing catechetical instructions, it also gave instructions concerning liturgical rites, the basic role of people in various types of ministry, and admonishments concerning authentic Christian living. All of this is crammed into just sixteen chapters, many of which are only the size of a standard paragraph.

In light of all this, the author of the Didache did not go into a lot of details, probably expecting the missionaries and catechists to do so. IMHO, he was trying to address specific issues in the ancient Church that he felt were in danger of being overlooked or neglected. For example, maybe there were no problems concerning the Anointing of the Sick at the time, but there were problems concerning invalid baptisms and improper celebrations of the Eucharist. So the former was not addressed but the latter two were.

Concerning confession, within the Didache we read:

“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)

“You shall confess your offenses in church, and shall not come forward to your prayer with a bad conscience.” (Didache 4:14).

I understand that you are aware of this, and that your point is that the role of a priest is not specifically mentioned. But neither is the role of the priest specifically mentioned in some of the Didache’s other material. For example, chapter 9 does not specify exactly who the minister of the Eucharist is, but St. Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, chapter 65, states that it is the “president” (i.e., “presider”) of the assembly.

We also see that, whereas the Didache gives ritual instructions concerning baptism in chapter 7, the minister of baptism is not specified. Nevertheless, the person doing the baptizing is responsible for the religious instructions of the initiate, and is to require the initiate to fast for one or two days prior to the baptism. One gets the sense that the minister of baptism is in a position of authority in the church, presumably a priest or bishop. Going back to what the Didache says about confession, because it instructs people to confess their sins “in church”, it is natural to presume that the president of the assembly plays a role in this.

The ordinary method for confession in the ancient Church was publicly, and one can imagine that many people were reluctant to do it. Perhaps the author of the Didache simply wanted to stress the importance of confession in Church, but saw no reason to detail sacramental confession beyond that. Like the Anointing of the Sick and Marriage, maybe the nuances of confession were already familiar enough among the community that the Didache simply skipped it for the sake of brevity.

 

[garysibio]

Jesus specifically give the authority to forgive sins to the Apostles. Full Stop, Period.

The sin offering thing as nothing to do with that, it was simply demonstrating that the psalmist could not be taken to suggest that all you had to do was confess to God.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession) is all about Grace. But god left the authority to administers such sacraments (Grace) to the authority of the Apostles. This passage cannot be taken to mean anything else. Do you not believe in the authority of the bible? Here scripture is clear!

Father,

You are correct. Jesus did give the apostles the authority to forgive sins. However He never said that sins could only be forgiven that way. James 5:16 also tells us to confess our sins one to another and pray so that each other be healed. I don’t mean this to sound sarcastic but I’ve never heard the priest say “My turn” after I finished confessing.

Also, the form of confession has changed. If you read “The Shepherd” by Hermas, you will notice that in the early days you were only allowed to receive the sacrament once. People were not holier back then. For this to be the case the Church must have either thought differently about confessing sins or no one ever received the Eucharist, including the priests.

 

[garysibio]

Here is another post.

biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#11

Why confess to a priest?

Well, the quick answer is because that’s the way God wants us to do it. In James 5:16, God, through Sacred Scripture, commands us to “confess our sins to one another.” Notice, Scripture does not say confess your sins straight to God and only to God…it says confess your sins to one another.

In Matthew, 9:6, Jesus tells us that He was given authority on earth to forgive sins. And then Scripture proceeds to tell us, in verse 8, that this authority was given to “men”…plural.

In John 20:21-23, what is the 1st thing Jesus says to the gathered disciples on the night of His resurrection? “Jesus said to them, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’” How did the Father send Jesus? Well, we just saw in Mt 9 that the Father sent Jesus with the authority on earth to forgive sins. Now, Jesus sends out His disciples as the Father has sent Him…so, what authority must Jesus be sending His disciples out with? The authority on earth to forgive sins. And, just in case they didn’t get it, verses 22-23 say this, “And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’”

Why would Jesus give the Apostles the power to forgive or to retain sins if He wasn’t expecting folks to confess their sins to them? And how could they forgive or retain sins if no one was confessing their sins to them?

The Bible tells us to confess our sins to one another. It also tells us that God gave men the authority on Earth to forgive sins. Jesus sends out His disciples with the authority on earth to forgive sins. When Catholics confess our sins to a priest, we are simply following the plan laid down by Jesus Christ. He forgives sins through the priest…it is God’s power, but He exercises that power through the ministry of the priest.

The Church used to be much more obedient to James 5:16. For the first couple of centuries you didn’t confess your sins in private, you confessed them before the entire local congregation.

Just because Jesus gave priests the authority to forgive sins does not imply that confessing to a priest was the only way of confessing.

 

[garysibio]

I recalled something…Psalm 51…the Misere…King David’s psalm.

Anyway, look at 2Sam12…where david is confronted by Nathan, confesses and is absolved by Nathan. David’s confession came first…then he wrote Psalm 51. Not the other way around.

good point

 

[garysibio]

Well, it’s not my intention to do any real blasting, but I will point out that the Didache, like the NT, was designed to be a companion for catechetical instruction, but not an exhaustive resource of the same. In the ancient Church, full initiation into the Church took three years, so there was plenty of time for both written and oral instructions. It is worth noting that neither the NT nor the Didache claims to provide the totality of catechetical material. There are doctrinal issues not found in the Didache (such as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity) and not all sacraments are even addressed (unless I am mistaken, the Anointing of the Sick and Marriage are not mentioned). This tells me that the Didache was designed to address only some aspects of the Christian Faith as opposed to all aspects.

Consider the fact that the Didache is a fairly brief document, and it was probably intended to be so in order to make it a more portable for missionaries. In addition to providing catechetical instructions, it also gave instructions concerning liturgical rites, the basic role of people in various types of ministry, and admonishments concerning authentic Christian living. All of this is crammed into just sixteen chapters, many of which are only the size of a standard paragraph.

In light of all this, the author of the Didache did not go into a lot of details, probably expecting the missionaries and catechists to do so. IMHO, he was trying to address specific issues in the ancient Church that he felt were in danger of being overlooked or neglected. For example, maybe there were no problems concerning the Anointing of the Sick at the time, but there were problems concerning invalid baptisms and improper celebrations of the Eucharist. So the former was not addressed but the latter two were.

Concerning confession, within the Didache we read:

“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)

“You shall confess your offenses in church, and shall not come forward to your prayer with a bad conscience.” (Didache 4:14).

I understand that you are aware of this, and that your point is that the role of a priest is not specifically mentioned. But neither is the role of the priest specifically mentioned in some of the Didache’s other material. For example, chapter 9 does not specify exactly who the minister of the Eucharist is, but St. Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, chapter 65, states that it is the “president” (i.e., “presider”) of the assembly.

We also see that, whereas the Didache gives ritual instructions concerning baptism in chapter 7, the minister of baptism is not specified. Nevertheless, the person doing the baptizing is responsible for the religious instructions of the initiate, and is to require the initiate to fast for one or two days prior to the baptism. One gets the sense that the minister of baptism is in a position of authority in the church, presumably a priest or bishop. Going back to what the Didache says about confession, because it instructs people to confess their sins “in church”, it is natural to presume that the president of the assembly plays a role in this.

The ordinary method for confession in the ancient Church was publicly, and one can imagine that many people were reluctant to do it. Perhaps the author of the Didache simply wanted to stress the importance of confession in Church, but saw no reason to detail sacramental confession beyond that. Like the Anointing of the Sick and Marriage, maybe the nuances of confession were already familiar enough among the community that the Didache simply skipped it for the sake of brevity.

What you say is true but we’re not talking about some esoteric point of theology. This is about getting your sins forgiven. The Didache does quote Matt 5:23-24 about leaving your gift at the altar and seeking the forgiveness of anyone who has something against you. If it deals with this, it’s hard to believe it would skip over telling new Christians about the need to confess their sins to a priest.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Paul didn’t say what you said he said, isn’t that right? And you figured that out when I pressed you to tell me where Paul said that, isn’t that right? Remember, not telling the truth is a sin.

I’m sure I’m fine, but I’m not so sure about you. Tell you what, instead of you praying for me, you pray for you, and I will too. Mkay?

Sig, Let me just allow what you have said to stand for now.
Let us agree that Paul did not say what I said he said – “directly”.
But – you have conveniently ignored that Peter does say it directly as well as John.

Paul said it in two ways – and even you know that Paul said we did it in PLACE of chirst himself – and Paul was not talking to the twelve Jesus had chosen, nor to the disciples which Jesus himself had chosen. He was talking to men chosen BY those disciples and apostles and the 12.

Remember, not telling the truth is a sin.

You will convict Jesus himself of sin if you convict me of it and he will repay us both.

Luke 24:18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleophas, answering, said to him: Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast **not known **the things that have been done there in these days?
Luke 24:19 To whom he said: What things? And they said: Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in work and word before God and all the people.

Now, Sig, you tell the truth; Are you a priest or not?
By your own words you will be judged.
If you will not confess to a friend, amen I say to you – you WILL confess to an enemy!

                 Originally Posted by **Huiou Theou**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8699619#post8699619)                 
             *Bonus: KJV

Exodu 19:6 And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom,
Revel 1:6 And hath made us* kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Revel 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
1Pete 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Since Paul is more difficult, I’ll use two passages from him to the same effect.

Hebre 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

2Cori 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you** by us**: **we pray you **in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Ambassadors intercede between nations and peoples; even royal and priestly ones. Again, it’s a matter of rank. There is only One high priest; the rest of us get to confess to one another…

I’ll pray for you; as a common priest, God may hear my prayer on your behalf.
Do you also pray for me, and those you love?

I’m sure I’m fine, but I’m not so sure about you. Tell you what, instead of you praying for me, you pray for you, and I will too. Mkay?

By your words you may be healed, and by your words you may be struck.
Blessed be the Lord – thank you for your prayers whoever you are.
Amen.

 

[EricFilmer]

What you say is true but we’re not talking about some esoteric point of theology. This is about getting your sins forgiven. The Didache does quote Matt 5:23-24 about leaving your gift at the altar and seeking the forgiveness of anyone who has something against you. If it deals with this, it’s hard to believe it would skip over telling new Christians about the need to confess their sins to a priest.

To begin with, seeing as the text specifically tells people to confess their sins “in church”, I don’t think it is entirely skipping over the notion of priestly involvement. The participation of a priest is not specifically stated, but it is at least implicitly so, just as the role of the priest is implicit in other areas of the document. If one concludes that the priest may not have actually played a role in the confession of sins in the ancient Church because the Didache does not clearly point that out, then by the same line of reasoning one can conclude that priests did not actually play a role in offering the Mass or in baptizing.

Secondly, you are presuming that the Didache was written to be a comprehensive catechism for the sake of initiates learning about the Christian Faith. And yet within the Didache, of the seven sacraments, only baptism, confession and the Eucharist are mentioned. Ordination is, at best, only alluded to in a statement concerning the election of bishops and deacons. Marriage, confirmation, anointing of the sick are skipped completely. If the Didache was written to be a comprehensive catechism for the unlearned, how do we account for about half of the sacraments not being addressed?

Thirdly, whereas you see the Didache as a text given to catechumens (to help them learn the Faith), I see it as a resource for missionaries and catechists to better help them teach the Faith (as well as a resource for the clergy in terms of administering the sacraments). To back this up, I point out that the author seems to presume that the reader already has fundamental knowledge of sacramental theology. For example, he instructs the reader how to perform a proper Christian baptism, but does not explain exactly what baptism does. To use your expression, baptism “is about getting your sins forgiven” and yet the Didache never actually tells the reader that. If I am correct then the author was writing for the benefit of catechists, missionaries and clergy, who already knew about baptismal theology, but may not know the proper method for doing the actual ritual. But if you are correct, and the Didache was written to teach initiates the Faith, then the absence of fundamental baptismal theology is even more of a glaring omission than not specifying that a person confesses sins to a priest.

I just went through the Didache again and found no mention of the death and resurrection of Christ. This omission likewise tells me that the author presumes that the reader already knows about it, and therefore the text was not written as a catechism for initiates. As I’ve stated before, it was not intended to be a comprehensive catechism, but a resource tool for catechists and clergy.

 

[maryj]

Father,

You are correct. Jesus did give the apostles the authority to forgive sins. However He never said that sins could only be forgiven that way. James 5:16 also tells us to confess our sins one to another and pray so that each other be healed. I don’t mean this to sound sarcastic but I’ve never heard the priest say “My turn” after I finished confessing.

Also, the form of confession has changed. If you read “The Shepherd” by Hermas, you will notice that in the early days you were only allowed to receive the sacrament once. People were not holier back then. For this to be the case the Church must have either thought differently about confessing sins or no one ever received the Eucharist, including the priests.

Taken from the catholic encyclopedia:
The whole book is thus concerned with the Christian virtues and their exercise. It is an ethical, not a theological, work. The intention is above all to preach repentance. A single chance of restoration after fall is given to Christians, and this opportunity is spoken of as something new, which had never been clearly published before. The writer is pained by the sins of the faithful and is sincerely anxious for their conversion and return to good works. As a layman, Hermas avoids dogma, and, when incidentally it comes in, it is vague or incorrect. It has been thought with some reason that he did not distinguish the Son from the Holy Ghost, or that he held that the Holy Ghost became the Son by His Incarnation. But his words are not clear, and his ideas on the subject may have been rather misty and confused than definitely erroneous.

 

[garysibio]

Taken from the catholic encyclopedia:
The whole book is thus concerned with the Christian virtues and their exercise. It is an ethical, not a theological, work. The intention is above all to preach repentance. A single chance of restoration after fall is given to Christians, and this opportunity is spoken of as something new, which had never been clearly published before. The writer is pained by the sins of the faithful and is sincerely anxious for their conversion and return to good works. As a layman, Hermas avoids dogma, and, when incidentally it comes in, it is vague or incorrect. It has been thought with some reason that he did not distinguish the Son from the Holy Ghost, or that he held that the Holy Ghost became the Son by His Incarnation. But his words are not clear, and his ideas on the subject may have been rather misty and confused than definitely erroneous.

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.

 

[garysibio]

To begin with, seeing as the text specifically tells people to confess their sins “in church”, I don’t think it is entirely skipping over the notion of priestly involvement. The participation of a priest is not specifically stated, but it is at least implicitly so, just as the role of the priest is implicit in other areas of the document. If one concludes that the priest may not have actually played a role in the confession of sins in the ancient Church because the Didache does not clearly point that out, then by the same line of reasoning one can conclude that priests did not actually play a role in offering the Mass or in baptizing.

While the reconciliation does take place in the context of the Mass - they didn’t have churches at the time - there is no priest implied in the text other than your desire to see one there. It doesn’t even have to be about a sin. If there is any issue at all, sinful or not, it is to be celebrated before participating in the Eucharist.

Your argument boils down to the Didache doesn’t mention priests so it must have meant priests. It just doesn’t fly.

Secondly, you are presuming that the Didache was written to be a comprehensive catechism for the sake of initiates learning about the Christian Faith. And yet within the Didache, of the seven sacraments, only baptism, confession and the Eucharist are mentioned. Ordination is, at best, only alluded to in a statement concerning the election of bishops and deacons. Marriage, confirmation, anointing of the sick are skipped completely. If the Didache was written to be a comprehensive catechism for the unlearned, how do we account for about half of the sacraments not being addressed?

I’ve already addressed this point but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and do so again. The Didache doesn’t have to be all-inclusive. For that very reason it should have covered what the author(s) thought was important. 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. If the early Church held that after baptism you must confess your sins to a priest to obtain forgiveness, then I would think that fact to be a lot more important that some of the things that did make it into the Didache such as how to deal with itinerant prophets.

Thirdly, whereas you see the Didache as a text given to catechumens (to help them learn the Faith), I see it as a resource for missionaries and catechists to better help them teach the Faith (as well as a resource for the clergy in terms of administering the sacraments). To back this up, I point out that the author seems to presume that the reader already has fundamental knowledge of sacramental theology. For example, he instructs the reader how to perform a proper Christian baptism, but does not explain exactly what baptism does. To use your expression, baptism “is about getting your sins forgiven” and yet the Didache never actually tells the reader that. If I am correct then the author was writing for the benefit of catechists, missionaries and clergy, who already knew about baptismal theology, but may not know the proper method for doing the actual ritual. But if you are correct, and the Didache was written to teach initiates the Faith, then the absence of fundamental baptismal theology is even more of a glaring omission than not specifying that a person confesses sins to a priest.

The same argument above applies here. There are a lot of things covered in the Didache which are of less importance that confession. Why include them and leave it out?

That the Didache was written for catechumens is not my idea; it’s the view held by the experts in such matters. I’ll even grant your point about its use by missionaries even though I doubt that carrying around a scroll(s) was a high priority in those days.

I just went through the Didache again and found no mention of the death and resurrection of Christ. This omission likewise tells me that the author presumes that the reader already knows about it, and therefore the text was not written as a catechism for initiates. As I’ve stated before, it was not intended to be a comprehensive catechism, but a resource tool for catechists and clergy.

You are partially correct here. The fact that the person is entering the Church implies that they would know about the death and resurrection of Jesus. However that implies nothing about why confession to a priest was omitted. I still hold that, if the early Church believed this, it would have been included in the Didache especially since it addresses the issue of dealing with conflicts between believers. Why stop at that point?

 

[EricFilmer]

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 Post #30 you stated that Jesus “gave priests the authority to forgive sins.” But in Post #37 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?

Moreover, I am unclear as to exactly what your position is concerning the role of priests in the context of the confession of sins in the ancient Church. Therefore, I would appreciate if you would clarify this as well.

While the reconciliation does take place in the context of the Mass - they didn’t have churches at the time –

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.”

…there is no priest implied in the text other than your desire to see one there.

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)

”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).

It doesn’t even have to be about a sin. If there is any issue at all, sinful or not, it is to be celebrated before participating in the Eucharist.

I don’t understand what you mean. The Didache says to “confess your offenses” for the sake of the purity of the Eucharist (14:1). What else can this be referring to except sin?

Your argument boils down to the Didache doesn’t mention priests so it must have meant priests. It just doesn’t fly.

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?

I’ve already addressed this point but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and do so again. The Didache doesn’t have to be all-inclusive.

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

For that very reason it should have covered what the author(s) thought was important.

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

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

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.

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).

If the early Church held that after baptism you must confess your sins to a priest to obtain forgiveness, then I would think that fact to be a lot more important that some of the things that did make it into the Didache such as how to deal with itinerant prophets.

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.

The same argument above applies here. There are a lot of things covered in the Didache which are of less importance that confession. Why include them and leave it out?

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.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

That the Didache was written for catechumens is not my idea; it’s the view held by the experts in such matters.

We both agree that the Didache contains some catechetical material, but are you saying that there are experts who specifically state that the intended readers of the Didache were unlearned catechumens (as opposed to it being a teaching tool for catechists)? I would like to see such quotes before I comment further.

I’ll even grant your point about its use by missionaries even though I doubt that carrying around a scroll(s) was a high priority in those days.

According to Dr. John Bergsma in his lecture series on the Gospel of John, having the gospels and other Christian writings in a portable format was a very high priority. The ancient Christians were the ones who popularized the use of codices (not scrolls) because they were compact and portable, and therefore prized by missionaries.

You are partially correct here. The fact that the person is entering the Church implies that they would know about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Earlier you said that the Didache would not need to be all-inclusive, but that it would be inclusive concerning important aspects of the Christian Faith. But now you’re saying that the author of the Didache would have left out important information if he presumed the reader already knew about it. So which is it? Does the Didache need to include all the important aspects of Christianity or not?

However that implies nothing about why confession to a priest was omitted.

Ok, so you are saying that the author of the Didache presumes that the catechumens know about the death and resurrection of Christ, but he does not presume that the catechumens know about confessing sins to a priest. Clearly explain how you came to this conclusion.

I still hold that, if the early Church believed this, it would have been included in the Didache especially since it addresses the issue of dealing with conflicts between believers. Why stop at that point?

If confession to a priest is publically observed at the beginning of Mass, why does the Didache have to spell all that out? The Didache also talks about how to do the words of consecration in terms of the Eucharist (chapter 9), but with no priest specified. Does this mean that the early Christians felt that anybody could get some bread and wine and hold his or her own Mass? Obviously not. So the Didache presumes the reader knows about the involvement of a priest concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist, so why can’t it presume the reader knows about the involvement of a priest concerning the sacrament of confession?