Catholics have confession, what do Protestants have if they sin?

[Richard_Kastner]

The little story of Nathan is what happens to a true penitant. One recognizes the offense, and accepts it and admits it. David did this. This is the same thing that happens in the confessional. A recognition of the offense, and admittance and a desire to reconcile to God by going to confession.

As has been pointed out, it is God acting through Nathan, when Nathan absolves David. Nathan would not have said the words of absolution without God’s ok.

Again, a forerunner of the sacrament of confession.

Let’s take a look at all of Psalm 51

I think that we are starting to talk to ourselves. When you make this statement “So David is not confessing in Psalm 51, he had already done that” you are for whatever reason simply failing to acknowledge what the Psalm is all about.

Psalm 51
1Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness:according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Nope, it is about restoring the affects of sin, after the event of 2Sam12, after David had admitted and realized his sin and Nathan had pronounced absolution.

Why would anyone want to restore the affects of sin?

I beg your pardon, dear Richard. What do you mean by “Intention of the Minister”?

You beg my pardon? Shouldn’t you be begging The Council of Trent’s pardon?
Here’s the 11th canon of that council once again.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.

This canon states that in order for any sacrament to be valid, THE INTENTION OF THE PRIEST IS NECESSARY. Now that’s what this canon says NOT ME. It further goes on to say that if you don’t accept this canon you shall be anathema or cursed. So apparently the CC is saying that the validity of the sacraments lies not with the intentions of Jesus, but solely and completely with the INTENTIONS OF THE PRIEST. You can see the far reaching ramifications of such a canon. For instance if the preists intention is not there in the sacrament of baptism, unbeknown to the recipiant, he is still in his sins and cannot enter heaven. The same would be true of confession. Or how about Holy orders? If the intention is not there of the Bishop in HO the priest is not ordained and anyone who is married by him whether his intention is there or not is committing fornication. The ramifications seem endless.

I think you do not understand the commission given in John 21 about the sacrament.

I’m assuming that you mean Jn.20:22&23
Jn.20
22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Jesus is not giving His disciples carte blanc to forgive sins or not. What He is doing is showing them that He has confidence in them. That they would not release the sanctions put on sinners (Matt.18) unless they saw heartfelt remorse and repentence. Then they could be allowed back into fellowship with the bretheren. Jesus never however relinquishes the power to forgive sins to the disciples or anyone else. That is still and will always remain God’s prerogative.

 

[Nicea325]

Jn.20
22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Jesus is not giving His disciples carte blanc to forgive sins or not. What He is doing is showing them that He has confidence in them. That they would not release the sanctions put on sinners (Matt.18) unless they saw heartfelt remorse and repentence. Then they could be allowed back into fellowship with the bretheren. Jesus never however relinquishes the power to forgive sins to the disciples or anyone else. That is still and will always remain God’s prerogative.

---

In Christ Richard

Wrong! Bad,bad,bad understanding Ricahrd. Jesus is empowering the Apostles exactly what you do not believe.
‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained’."

Who did Jesus breathe to the Apostles? The Third Person of the Trinity.

Tell me what part of verse 23 of John 20 do you not understand?
I don’t think many non-Catholics pay enough attention. In verse 23 Jesus says, “You forgive” and “you retain,” Tell me something? Who in the heck is…YOU in that verse? A dog? A cat? An angel?

Jesus does not SAY:

“You proclaim forgiveness” or “You proclaim retention.” The bottomline is simple: You like so many non-Catholics simply CANNOT take verse 23 for what it really says because of prejudice against the Catholic doctrine…plain and simple!

 

[JimmyBru]

That is so farfetched, it borders on ludicrous! Just because we don’t feel the need to confess to a priest, does not mean we don;t believe in the priesthood!

Sorry for having been ludicrous. I will refrain from responding in the future in a ludicrous and far fetched manner.

In my thought process (as a Catholic), if you deny or feel you don’t need the sacrament of reconciliation, then you don’t feel or deny that you need the services of a priest. So in some way you are telling Jesus that the priest He put here on earth to bind and loose is not part of the Apostolic succession and is not needed. If you don’t believe in what the fullness of the priesthood means to Catholics, then you are moving further away from Jesus. Protestants don’t have the sacramental life that Jesus intended for all of us, but that doesn’t mean Jesus is not longing for their return to Him.

A lot of good scriptural arguments have come forth on this thread, and also a lot of denial and ignorance. I was only trying to move the conversation from the head and emotional level to the heart level. Evidently I failed miserably. I ask for your forgiveness for intruding on this thread and will go back to lurking and reading and praying.

God bless.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by 1beleevr
That is so farfetched, it borders on ludicrous! Just because we don’t feel the need to confess to a priest, does not mean we don;t believe in the priesthood!

Ludicrous? Is it ludicrous to go to a doctor when one is ill,because one doesn’t feel the need to tell a doctor he or she is ill? How about a family counselor? That is one of the errors of Protestanism: If it feels good for me, it must be okay. We must conform to the will of GOD and not to our own personal beliefs and opinions. Geeee…you think all those personal beliefs and opinions has led to massive divisions within the circle of non-Catholics?

 

[JonathonofOhio]

:thumbsup:Bravo, Richard, good answer! It is chronicled throughout the Bible, how mighty men of God went directly to Him to confess their sins, and plead for forgiveness! David, Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Paul, and the list goes on. Jesus pretty much tells us that He will be our Mediator between us and the Father! Nowhere in scripture does Jesus say togo to confession with a priest!

Apparently you never read Leviticus (See Chapter 5 for one). Under the Law a person went to a priest, providing the sacrifice, and told the priest what sin they committed so the priest could pray for them. The confession out loud is implied, since the priest must have needed to know the sin(s) in order to pray for them and offer the appropriate sacrifice. God states that the priest must pray for the sinner in order for the sin to be forgiven. According to the Law it was forgiven once the priest prayed for the remission of the sin, not when the person confessed their sin to God.

You must have also misread Matthew 9:1-8 in which the people glorified God for having given men the power to forgive sins. They glorified God because Jesus showed them that indeed under the Law God gave men the power to forgive sins, and such power was confirmed when Jesus proved it to them by healing the crippled man.

Perhaps too you also missed James 5:16, in which the apostle knowing full well that Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Confession for the purposes of the remission of sin wrote: “Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.”

Furthermore in John 20, Jesus instructs the disciples that sins they forgive are forgiven, and the sins they retain are retained. How could they know what sins to forgive or retain if someone wasn’t telling them the sin?

Also the very act of confessing anything is an oral act of making something known. We are taught in the bible to confess that we believe, and plenty of other denominations besides the Catholic Church confess belief out loud. Well then how does the logic follow that using the word to describe the mode of getting ones sins forgiven is somehow a private matter between God and the person committing the sin? The very definition of “confessing” means to make something known. If God already knows all my sins, why would He have a need for me to confess them right to Him?

To my knowledge there is no place in the bible where we are instructed explicitly to confess our sins directly to God. We are only instructed to pray for forgiveness of our sins; nothing about CONFESSING sins to Him. However, there is explicit instructions to confess your sins to another person.

If your best argument against confession to a priest is that certain people in the bible prayed that their sins would be forgiven, then you should just concede that you have lost the argument, swallow your pride, and go to confession.

 

[hn160]

Since it is not entirely clear whether John 20:21-23 gave man the power to forgive sins, then it becomes a matter of interpretation! You see it one way, everyone else sees it another way. God really doesn’t need anyone between Him and the confessor; because He is all that! But I have nothing but respect for you all who believe so strongly in all that you believe in!

The Augsburg Confession states this about John 20: 21-23:
5 Our teachers assert that according to the Gospel the power of keys or the power of bishops is a power and command of God to preach the Gospel, to forgive and retain sins, and to administer and distribute the sacraments. 6 For Christ sent out the apostles with this command, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21-23).
8 This power of keys or of bishops is used and exercised only by teaching and preaching the Word of God and by administering the sacraments (to many persons or to individuals, depending on one’s calling). In this way are imparted no bodily but eternal things and gifts, namely, eternal righteousness, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life. 9 These gifts cannot be obtained except through the office of preaching and of administering the holy sacraments, for St. Paul says, “The gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith.”2 10 Inasmuch as the power of the church or of bishops bestows eternal gifts and is used and exercised only through the office of preaching, it does not interfere at all with government or temporal authority. 11 Temporal authority is concerned with matters altogether different from the Gospel. Temporal power does not protect the soul, but with the sword and physical penalties it protects body and goods from the power of others.
Tappert, Theodore G.: The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 2000, c1959, S. 81

 

[pablope]

I think that we are starting to talk to ourselves. When you make this statement “So David is not confessing in Psalm 51, he had already done that” you are for whatever reason simply failing to acknowledge what the Psalm is all about.

Why would anyone want to restore the affects of sin?

 

[pablope]

pablope;7954122:

**
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 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.

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

David the King conversed directly with GOD:
2Samuel 2:1, “And after these things David consulted the Lord, saying: Shall I go up into one of the cities of Juda? And the Lord said to him: Go up. And David said: Whither shall I go up? And he answered him: Into Hebron.”

Yet David still had to confess to Nathan and hear from him that he had been forgiven.
2Samuel 12:13, “And David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shalt not die.”

Thanks, Nicea, for the quotes.

As I also pointed out in Job 42 v7-8, God does want anything to do with Job’s friends and orders them to go through Job to be forgiven.

 

[Lapey]

You beg my pardon? Shouldn’t you be begging The Council of Trent’s pardon?
Here’s the 11th canon of that council once again.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.
This canon states that in order for any sacrament to be valid, THE INTENTION OF THE PRIEST IS NECESSARY. Let me ask you, how many priests do you know that intentionally confer the sacrements without the intention of the actions of the Church? Why would a Catholic priest administer the sacrement of confession if his intent is not to confer the sacrement?Now that’s what this canon says NOT ME. It further goes on to say that if you don’t accept this canon you shall be anathema or cursed. So apparently the CC is saying that the validity of the sacraments lies not with the intentions of Jesus, but solely and completely with the INTENTIONS OF THE PRIEST.Jesus gave His authority to the priests, so yes you are right here. You can see the far reaching ramifications of such a canon. For instance if the preists intention is not there in the sacrament of baptism, unbeknown to the recipiant, he is still in his sins and cannot enter heaven. You have a sad view of the priests in the Church. Why would a priest do what you say? Furthermore, do you think, if this were to happen, that the power of God would not take care of the soul of His little one? The same would be true of confession. Or how about Holy orders? If the intention is not there of the Bishop in HO the priest is not ordained and anyone who is married by him whether his intention is there or not is committing fornication. The ramifications seem endless.Why do non Catholics put such limits on God??? The Church will supply.

I’m assuming that you mean Jn.20:22&23
Jn.20
22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Jesus is not giving His disciples carte blanc to forgive sins or not. Sorry sir, but that is exactly what He is doing. You need to take your “anti-Catholic” glasses off for a little while and look into the text, in context to know what Jesus is in fact saying.What He is doing is showing them that He has confidence in them. Please show proof of this statement in scripture, or Sacred Tradition.That they would not release the sanctions put on sinners (Matt.18) I’m looking but all I see is the authority to bind and loose.unless they saw heartfelt remorse and repentence. Then they could be allowed back into fellowship with the bretheren. Jesus never however relinquishes the power to forgive sins to the disciples or anyone else. That is still and will always remain God’s prerogative.Sure is His prerogative. He works this through His priesthood whom He authorizes to forgive or retain.

Until you are able to take off the descriminating glasses, you will not see the truth. This is sad, but true. This is why Sacred Tradition along with Sacred Scripture taught by the Magisteriem, is so important; because these teachings are “spirit and Life”, the flesh is of no avail. Jn. 6:63.

 

[onenow1]

Wow. It took me a while to get through all the postings on this thread.

I recently had a discussion with someone on this very subject and so when I saw the title, it piqued my interest. Many go through great lengths to explain why they only have to ‘go straight to God’. That’s very nice that they can comfort their own hearts on that matter.

But it brings to mind the question that was posed to Jesus of why Moses allowed divorce. He said it was because of the hardness of our hearts. Does hardness of hearts have something to do with confession also? Maybe people don’t want to confess to a priest because they deny the priesthood altogether and have hardened their hearts against the New Eucharistic Covenant?

Jesus wants us to be One Church, One Body. This fracture only hurts and damages, true repentance is needed and we need to listen to Jesus as He speaks through His Church.

I for one, have been trying to soften my heart for years,

God bless each and every one of you.

Hi, Jimmy and welcome and thank you ! You hit the nail right smack dab in the middle Jimmy ! For forty years they were a stiff necked people, giving Moses a hard time; As the saying goes there’s nothing new in the world, and it continues today; thousands of denominations later.

Peace,

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard…say you stole something…then you confess about it and is forgiven…do you get to keep what you stole or return it?

That is restoring the affects of sin, or expiating one’s sins. The same as Zaccheus said in Luke 19:

8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

Pablope, how do you restore the affects of the sin of murder, or covetousness? The example you give Zachaeus vows to give restitution. The affests of sin are what happen to **us **as a result of sin and that of coarse is death.
Rom6
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

That is why you cannot go beyond claiming Psalm 51 as a confession when it is not.

Take these two vs.
Ps.51
3For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

Are you saying that David is not confessing here?

As I said stated previously, David had confessed and been absolved

I know what you said, I just vigorously disagree

in 2Sam 12:13. If you read further, you will see why:

14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the LORD, the son born to you will die.”
15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth** on the ground.**

This doesn’t explain why David confessed and was absolved, It only shows that there are always consequences for sin.

David is praying, mercy for not only for himself, for he had confessed and been absolved, but so that his son from Bathseba will be spared. This is what I was trying to impress in you by citing the footnotes of the Psalm.

David did confess and because his repentance was sincere he was forgiven. As I have shown you this takes place in Psalm 51

Yes, I meant Jn20:22-23.

No wonder. You are reading the Trent Canon through your own anti-catholic lense. The canon is a catholic document. You should read it with the lens of a catholic understanding and the same with John 20. Then you will understand the context of it.

Unless you do so, there is nothing but more confusion for your part.

So you are saying that this canon does not say that the intention of the priest is necessary for the sacraments to be valid. Perhaps you could read it through your Catholic lens and enlighten me? Here it is again.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner

You beg my pardon? Shouldn’t you be begging The Council of Trent’s pardon?
Here’s the 11th canon of that council once again.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.
This canon states that in order for any sacrament to be valid, THE INTENTION OF THE PRIEST IS NECESSARY.

Let me ask you, how many priests do you know that intentionally confer the sacrements without the intention of the actions of the Church? Why would a Catholic priest administer the sacrement of confession if his intent is not to confer the sacrement?

Why would a priest choose to abuse children? Are you saying it is not possible?

Now that’s what this canon says NOT ME. It further goes on to say that if you don’t accept this canon you shall be anathema or cursed. So apparently the CC is saying that the validity of the sacraments lies not with the intentions of Jesus, but solely and completely with the INTENTIONS OF THE PRIEST.

Jesus gave His authority to the priests, so yes you are right here.

Jesus gave the authority to preach the gospel through the power of His words (The keys to the Kingdom).

You can see the far reaching ramifications of such a canon. For instance if the preists intention is not there in the sacrament of baptism, unbeknown to the recipiant, he is still in his sins and cannot enter heaven.

You have a sad view of the priests in the Church. Why would a priest do what you say?

Good question. but possible, yes?

Furthermore, do you think, if this were to happen, that the power of God would not take care of the soul of His little one?

This is a canon of the CC. It really doesn’t matter what I think. Apparently the sacraments take no effect if the INTENTION OF THE PRIEST is not present and you are required under pain of anethema to believe this. Why would God undermine His infallible church?

The same would be true of confession. Or how about Holy orders? If the intention is not there of the Bishop in HO the priest is not ordained and anyone who is married by him whether his intention is there or not is committing fornication. The ramifications seem endless.

Why do non Catholics put such limits on God??? The Church will supply.

These are all valid scenarios under this canon.

I’m assuming that you mean Jn.20:22&23
Jn.20
22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Jesus is not giving His disciples carte blanc to forgive sins or not. Sorry sir, but that is exactly what He is doing. You need to take your “anti-Catholic” glasses off for a little while and look into the text, in context to know what Jesus is in fact saying.What He is doing is showing them that He has confidence in them. Please show proof of this statement in scripture, or Sacred Tradition.That they would not release the sanctions put on sinners (Matt.18) I’m looking but all I see is the authority to bind and loose.unless they saw heartfelt remorse and repentence. Then they could be allowed back into fellowship with the bretheren. Jesus never however relinquishes the power to forgive sins to the disciples or anyone else. That is still and will always remain God’s prerogative.

Sure is His prerogative. He works this through His priesthood whom He authorizes to forgive or retain.

Not according to canon 11 of the seventh session of the Council of Trent. It is the prerogative of the priest.

Until you are able to take off the descriminating glasses, you will not see the truth. This is sad, but true. This is why Sacred Tradition along with Sacred Scripture taught by the Magisteriem, is so important; because these teachings are “spirit and Life”, the flesh is of no avail. Jn. 6:63.

Jn.6
63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jesus was talking about His words here, not the Magesterium’s. I think you need to take off your Catholic lenses. They are making you blind.

 

[Inishfree]

I was a child when attending a Methodist church. So of course it was explained to me on a level. I could understand. I was told. As soon as I knew. I committed sin. I was to pray to Jesus, ask for guidance and forgiveness.

 

[Lapey]

Why would a priest choose to abuse children? This is not needed on this forum or in this conversation. I could ask if you realize that your protestant pastors are, according to the stats more likely to be caught up in a scandal like you mention, but it would serve no purpose.Are you saying it is not possible? Yes it is possible, however, the “Church will Provide”

Now that’s what this canon says NOT ME. It further goes on to say that if you don’t accept this canon you shall be anathema or cursed. So apparently the CC is saying that the validity of the sacraments lies not with the intentions of Jesus, but solely and completely with the INTENTIONS OF THE PRIEST.What is the intent of the canon? Do you have any idea why the coucil of Trent was promulgated? It was to correct protestants like you. Do the research and find the context, you will be amazed.

Jesus gave the authority to preach the gospel through the power of His words (The keys to the Kingdom). So even in the old testament the key reference only meant that the word could be preached??? Thats a new one on me.

You can see the far reaching ramifications of such a canon. The ramifications are far worse in the other direction if it were not so. Who has the authority to bind and loose, or forgive or retain if it is not the priests?For instance if the preists intention is not there in the sacrament of baptism, unbeknown to the recipiant, he is still in his sins and cannot enter heaven.This is completely out of context. If I as a deacon baptise a baby with all the proper form and matter, the baby is baptised, period. When a priest hears a confession of a penitent and does not see repentance and regret on the part of the person, his sins can be retained by the intent of the priest. This is the intent of the canon. It is not a loosely developed law that will allow evil people to play games with the sacraments. This is just silly.

Good question. but possible, yes?Possible, yes, probable, no. What would be the motive, or the profit? Just to be evil?

The example you give about baptism is just silly as well.

This is a canon of the CC. It really doesn’t matter what I think. At last we agree, it does not matter what you think, because you of coarse are wrong in your thinking.Apparently the sacraments take no effect if the INTENTION OF THE PRIEST is not present and you are required under pain of anethema to believe this. Why would God undermine His infallible church?

The same would be true of confession. Or how about Holy orders? If the intention is not there of the Bishop in HO the priest is not ordained and anyone who is married by him whether his intention is there or not is committing fornication. The ramifications seem endless.

These are all valid scenarios under this canon.
No, they are not. The canon states that the priest, or other minister, must at least intend what the action of the Church is. To believe that a man, deacon, priest or bishop, would go through all these processes and rituals and training and everything else involved to just screw with someone’s head, is simply stupid, and it is not the intent of the canon.

Not according to canon 11 of the seventh session of the Council of Trent. It is the prerogative of the priest.No, it is the authority of Jesus Christ given to the Priest by Jesus Himself. Keep up here sir, The priest participates in teh Royal Priesthood of Christ by his ordination, therefore by the authority given him through Christ Jesus, he administers the sacrament of reconciliation. If he sees a lack of remorse and repentance, he can at his prerogative deny absolution and that person’s sins are retained until the person has a change of heart.

Jn.6
63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jesus was talking about His words here, not the Magesterium’s. I think you need to take off your Catholic lenses. They are making you blind. Jesus’ words taught the very first members of the Church’s magisteriem, the Apostles. Through the succession through centuries of time, they have passed that on to us. Some choose to accept this, some do not. I choose to see by the spirit and have faith in Jesus Christ and His Church. You choose to follow the traditions of men, the reformers, and reject the Words Jesus gave us with the teachings attatched to them through the Sacred Tradition and Magisteriem.

PS. If Jesus through His teachings and the teachings of the Church have made me blind to what you, a protestant, says is the truth, then I am good. The fullness of truth is contained in Holy Mother Church. The tradition i follow and believe comes from Christ Himself, not a person who by name “protests” what has been taught since the days before Christ was crucified. The traditions of men, Catholacism or Protestanism…hummm. I take door number one, Catholic, Latin Rite. If you care to be open to learning why I am blind to other’s interpretations, let me know. Untill then, be careful what you preach as gospel, especially if you rely on the opinions of men.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Its kind of funny the make or break point in the AA program is the confession of all your wrongs and they have to do it in the presence of another human being and God - because only in that way is it actually sincere and the person feels forgiven - doing it alone just doesn’t suffice or have any lasting effect and the AAer doesn’t find success in the program as I’ve been told.If confession was not something Jesus wanted us to do with other people I don’t understand why he would send his Disciples out to do exactly that - it makes not sense - Jesus doesn’t pass on pointless teachings or actions .

If someone hasn’t already told you this, the 12 Steps are based on St. Ignatrius’ examen of conscience. That may be why Catholics recognize the principles behind them.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

The Baptist perspective (from my relatives):

Once you accept Jesus into your heart, you are saved. From that point on, it doesn’t matter what you do. You can kill people, lie, steal, and lead a hugely sinful life and not ask for forgiveness, either, because you’ve already accepted Jesus in your heart a long time ago, and that guarantees salvation no matter what your life is like after that.

All of the above is qualified with: “but we wouldn’t actually do all that.”

I kid you not! This is what was said by one of them!

 

[1beleevr]

Quote:

Are you serious? Tell me what part of verse 23 of John 20 do you not understand?
I don’t think many non-Catholics pay enough attention. In verse 23 Jesus says, “**You **forgive” and “**you **retain,” Tell me something? Who in the heck is…YOU in that verse? A dog? A cat? An angel?

Jesus does not SAY:

“You proclaim forgiveness” or “You proclaim retention.” The bottomline is simple: You like so many non-Catholics simply CANNOT take verse 23 for what it really says because of prejudice against the Catholic doctrine…plain and simple!

Ever heard of absolution? Apparently not because of your false belief.

It’s the words that a priest uses to confer or convey the forgiveness of Christ once a person has confessed his sins. This absolution is based directly on Jesus’ words in John 20:19–23. It says, “God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son, has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sin, 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 the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

The formula states this important role of the Holy Spirit when it says that God “sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sin.” The Holy Spirit is the active agent of bringing the forgiveness of Christ to sinners.

Verse 21 Jesus says, “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” In other words, Jesus is giving his apostles the same authority that he received from his Father.

So please answer me. It is you alone who said you are forgiven,thus I want you tell us Catholic with what certitude do you know God has forgiven you?

W-O-W, pretty vicious; harmless but vicious! I understand ALL of John 20:20-23, just not from a catholic perspective! But let me ask you 2 questions: 1) Why did the disciples “receive” the Holy Spirit twice, before they set out to preach the Gospel?(Acts 1:8? Can you in your infinite wisdom, point out scriptures which definitively show the disciples forgiving sins? Even after receiving the Holy Spirit in John 20, they were still afraid of the Jews, and hid in the Upper Room! And why are you not able to comprehend 1John 1:9? Do you not know who the Him in that verse is? There is no mention of intercession there! And I actually do believe in the priesthood; mine is in the order of Melchizadek, the High Priest; you may have heard of Him, His name is Jesus Christ!

 

[1beleevr]

The Baptist perspective (from my relatives):

Once you accept Jesus into your heart, you are saved. From that point on, it doesn’t matter what you do. You can kill people, lie, steal, and lead a hugely sinful life and not ask for forgiveness, either, because you’ve already accepted Jesus in your heart a long time ago, and that guarantees salvation no matter what your life is like after that.

All of the above is qualified with: “but we wouldn’t actually do all that.”

I kid you not! This is what was said by one of them!

That’s a pretty radical viewpoint by a primarily small number of noncatholics! Tread lightly, and do not assume that ALL of us non catholics feel the same way! I for one do not espouse that certain philosophy!

 

[1beleevr]

If someone hasn’t already told you this, the 12 Steps are based on St. Ignatrius’ examen of conscience. That may be why Catholics recognize the principles behind them.

Confessing in front of others sounds like James 5:16 And not sure if I agree with how the twelve steps came to be!

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

That’s a pretty radical viewpoint by a primarily small number of noncatholics! Tread lightly, and do not assume that ALL of us non catholics feel the same way! I for one do not espouse that certain philosophy!

You will note that I specifically mentioned Baptist. I also know that not all Baptists are alike, but it is interesting that some people can actually bring themselves to believe that they don’t even have to ASK God for forgiveness.