Confession and Matt 9:8

  • Thread starter Thread starter erbo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don’t try to bully me into a corner. when they are used out of context I have seen Bible verses used to support all kinds of claims; but I have seen enough of an argument here that I will read and investigate the issue. my question was in regards to the sale of indulgences, b/c I did not know what the stance of the Roman Catholic Church was until Schabel told me.
Maybe you could explain the context of the verse, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” John 20:23.

Please, educate us. Maybe you can show us that it doesn’t mean what it actually says.

Again, the sale of Indugences was condemned at Trent and ended decisively in the middle of the 1500’s.

Sub
 
I personally tend to agree, that Matthew 9:8 is not about the Sacrament of Confession.
Well, with all due respect, whether you agree or not, the verse (in conjunction with 9:6) says that God gave the authority on earth to forgive sins to men. Is the Sacrament of Confession not about men having authority on earth to forgive sins? Indeed it is. So, to say that Matt 9:8 is not about the Sacrament of Confession is kind of like saying the Sacrament of Confession is not about men having authority on earth to forgive sins.
 
Don’t try to bully me into a corner. when they are used out of context I have seen Bible verses used to support all kinds of claims; but I have seen enough of an argument here that I will read and investigate the issue. my question was in regards to the sale of indulgences, b/c I did not know what the stance of the Roman Catholic Church was until Schabel told me.
I just thought that the thread was on confession and Matthew.

If I’m wrong, my bad.
 
It maybe against offical Dogma but The “sale” of indulgences is a huge issue, it is the main thing that brought about the reformation.

the line was crossed, and for me this is the issue
to quote Johann Tetzel "Every time a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs."has the Church ever spoken against this?
If the sale of Indulgences was the main thing that brought about the reformation, the basic Protestant Faith would resemble the Catholic Faith a whole lot closer. It was actually nothing more than an excuse to bring about the Reformation.
 
Again, the sale of Indugences was condemned at Trent and ended decisively in the middle of the 1500’s.

Sub
Besides, the sale of Indulgences has nothing to do with Forgiveness of Sins. Nothing. This is off-topic.

I don’t think that JTBT did this intentionally, but he’s potentially sending this thread down a rabbit-hole.
 
Re: confession and the Bible
I start in the OT, in Genesis 3 (following Bishop Sheen):
9 Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “(I)Where are you?” …
11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”
Our omniscient God need not ask these questions for Himself - but for us. This enounter is the first confession.

The second is in Gen 4:
9 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” …
10 He said, "What have you done?

Then there is 2 Sam 12:7-14:
7 Nathan then said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul.
8 'I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!
9 'Why have you despised the word of the LORD by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon.
10 ‘Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’
11"Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
12 ‘Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.’”
13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD " And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has 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.”

This sets the precedent in the OT, which is fulfilled in the NT with the NT verses you’ve already provided.
 
Indulgences are not sold.
This was the practice of some (corrupt) clergy back in the Middle Ages. Martin Luther objected to it with great force and he was right. The Council of Trent condemned the practice in the mid 1500’s.
thank you for the education. I honestly had no Idea that the Catholic Church had ever condemned the practice that Luther objected to. it is just to bad it took 46 years for the Church to respond.
It is people with nothing but evil intent who keep it alive even though the practice was ended nearly 500 years ago. It is kept alive in order to demean with hatred and in order to continue hostilities. Truly a satanic act.
hold up a minute, I think you judge to quickly, most Protestants even preachers, don’t know that much about Catholics, so how are we supposed to know something that we have never been taught? I wish you guys were more evangelical;)
If the sale of Indulgences was the main thing that brought about the reformation, the basic Protestant Faith would resemble the Catholic Faith a whole lot closer.
the “basic” Protestant Faith does resemble the Catholic Faith.
It was actually nothing more than an excuse to bring about the Reformation.
If Luther had nothing to Protest, the Catholic Church would have never had to condemned the misuse of Indulgences at the Council of Trent.
I don’t think that JTBT did this intentionally, but he’s potentially sending this thread down a rabbit-hole.
I did not intend to take this discussion “down a rabbit hole”
I just thought that the thread was on confession and Matthew.

If I’m wrong, my bad.
So back on topic if you tried to convince me; as Protestant, using Matt 9:8 as a proof text, I would say you are talking the verse out of context, this verse is saying that Jesus has the right to forgive sins
 
thank you for the education. I honestly had no Idea that the Catholic Church had ever condemned the practice that Luther objected to. it is just to bad it took 46 years for the Church to respond.
Ecumenical councils don’t spring up overnight. There have been only 21 or so in 2000 years of Church History. This is not a startlingly long time for the Council of Trent to act. The Church typically tries to resolve disputes without having to resort to councils. Councils should only be called when other means have been exhausted.

IMO, this seems to be the case with the first Ecumenical Council, the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. The Judaizers and the local Christian Church in Antioch could not resolve the circumcision issue - or “Skin-Gate” as I call it. 😉
the “basic” Protestant Faith does resemble the Catholic Faith.
Where is the Altar? Where is the Sacrifice offered up at Mass? Where is the Real Presence in the Eucharist? Where is the Sacrament of Confession? Confirmation? I could go on.

The “basic” Protestant Faith and the Catholic Church have a vast similarity in Faith, yes and AMEN!!!. But they have typically removed the Church from the picture - as an instrument of Salvation and Graces.
If Luther had nothing to Protest, the Catholic Church would have never had to condemned the misuse of Indulgences at the Council of Trent.
Amen!!! This wasn’t the first problem that Mother Church had faced. But other issues were resolved from within. None others had to take their ball and go play elsewhere. That’s not what Luther originally intended, but that’s what happened.
I did not intend to take this discussion “down a rabbit hole”
I didn’t think that you were. I was simply pointing out that Indulgences and Forgiveness of Sins are apples and oranges. There is no overlap in the two practices or the Graces that they bring about.

These two topics are often thought to be intertwined, so I felt the need to remind others that this is not so.
So back on topic if you tried to convince me; as Protestant, using Matt 9:8 as a proof text, I would say you are talking the verse out of context, this verse is saying that Jesus has the right to forgive sins
But that is not what this verse says. The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to write, When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings. That’s pretty plain-speak. And the methods of this “gift of authority” is detailed in John, chapter 20.
 
thank you for the education. I honestly had no Idea that the Catholic Church had ever condemned the practice that Luther objected to. it is just to bad it took 46 years for the Church to respond.
You’re welcome! It takes a while for councils to come together and they usually have more than one issue to address when they do. I posted a link to all the council documents. Meander through them to see what issues they addressed.
hold up a minute, I think you judge to quickly, most Protestants even preachers, don’t know that much about Catholics, so how are we supposed to know something that we have never been taught?
You may be right and if this is true in my addressing your misunderstanding, then please forgive me and accept my apologies. However, I know that there are others who have learned the truth and still behave that way.
I wish you guys were more evangelical;)
Actually, I think that the beginning of the ecumenical movement can be traced to the Second Vatican Council and the document UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO.

It actually began before then, but this document got the whole system changed.

For instance, during the Lenten season several of the churches in the area where I live are having ecumenical lunches on Wednesdays. Two Baptist churches, two Methodist churches, an Episcopal church, an SDA church and a Catholic church are taking part.

Sub
 
You’re welcome! It takes a while for councils to come together and they usually have more than one issue to address when they do. I posted a link to all the council documents. Meander through them to see what issues they addressed. .
Ecumenical councils don’t spring up overnight. There have been only 21 or so in 2000 years of Church History. This is not a startlingly long time for the Council of Trent to act. The Church typically tries to resolve disputes without having to resort to councils. Councils should only be called when other means have been exhausted.
maybe they don’t come about that fast , but 46 years is a long time, and it resolved after Luther died so the protestant movement had already split off, it’s just a shame really.
  • apology accepted Subrosa, but trust me Protestants don’t know that much about Catholics. and I would guess Catholics don’t know that much about Protestants. at least not good points anyway*
For instance, during the Lenten season several of the churches in the area where I live are having ecumenical lunches on Wednesdays. Two Baptist churches, two Methodist churches, an Episcopal church, an SDA church and a Catholic church are taking part.

Sub
That is so great, Praise God, I’ll tell you, I have been into Baptist churches (considering I’m a Baptist), Methodist,Episcopal, Penocostal and Non Demoninational Bible churches, I even went to a funeral at a MORMON church (that was …interesting), but I’ve never even seen the inside of a RC Chruch. but I have never been invited
The “basic” Protestant Faith and the Catholic Church have a vast similarity in Faith, yes and AMEN!!!. But they have typically removed the Church from the picture - as an instrument of Salvation and Graces.
that doesn’t mean we are outside of Grace.
But that is not what this verse says. The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to write, When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings. That’s pretty plain-speak. And the methods of this “gift of authority” is detailed in John, chapter 20.
well the NIV says given such authority to men, still in the plural I understand that; however, if the point of this verse was giving men the authority to forgive sins you would expect the sister verse in Mark to say the same thing, but it doesn’t it, it just says that they said we have never seen anything like this. where the verses are the same is really the point of this passage, in Matt. 9:6 and Mark 2:10

Matt. 9:6 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”…

***Mark 2:10 ***“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”…

Again this is not a good proof text for men having the authority to forgive sins, because it is not the point of the passage.
 
maybe they don’t come about that fast , but 46 years is a long time, and it resolved after Luther died so the protestant movement had already split off, it’s just a shame really.
Respectfully, you are thinking with the speed and time of modern internet man.

When you consider how long it took for a letter to get from one place to another, time to respond back, time to “deal” with things in a Christian manner, 46 years is just a drop in the bucket.
Again this is not a good proof text for men having the authority to forgive sins, because it is not the point of the passage.
I tend to agree with you.

I don’t believe one even needs to use Matthew 9:8 as John 20:21-23 shows that the sacrament of confession was instituted by Christ after rising from the dead:) .

:bible1: [21] Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”**
 
apology accepted Subrosa, but trust me Protestants don’t know that much about Catholics. and I would guess Catholics don’t know that much about Protestants. at least not good points anyway
and…
That is so great, Praise God, I’ll tell you, I have been into Baptist churches (considering I’m a Baptist), Methodist,Episcopal, Penocostal and Non Demoninational Bible churches, I even went to a funeral at a MORMON church (that was …interesting), but I’ve never even seen the inside of a RC Chruch. but I have never been invited
The Church extends an OPEN INVITATION to all. I therefore invite you to attend a mass in the near future.

Here is what you can expect…

The mass has two parts: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Each has it’s own smaller sections.

During The Liturgy of the Word, opening prayers are said, then a public confession of sin is declared. Biblical readings follow. On Sunday usually an Old Testament reading followed by a psalm in response to the first reading. Then a New Testament Epistle reading followed by a proclamation of the Gospel. A sermon, or homily, follows. The daily readings are found in a missal located in the pews. You will notice that a lay minister reads the epistles and the priest or deacon reads the gospel. This is a tradition in the church which places the Gospels above the other books. Intercessory prayers are then offered which finishes the first part.

The Liturgy of the Eucharist is next. It is a remembrance of the Last Supper as commanded by Christ at the Last Supper. You will experience the consecration of the bread and wine. The Holy Spirit is invoked during the prayers and the the bells are rung when action takes place. Communion is then fed to the congregation. After final prayers the mass is dismissed and admonished to “love and serve the Lord.”

The word *mass *is derived from the Latin phrase “ite missae est”, “you are dismissed” with the same admonishment.
that doesn’t mean we are outside of Grace.
It is easy to recognise the work of the Holy Spirit in most Protestant forms of Christianity.
well the NIV says given such authority to men, still in the plural I understand that; however, if the point of this verse was giving men the authority to forgive sins you would expect the sister verse in Mark to say the same thing, but it doesn’t it, it just says that they said we have never seen anything like this. where the verses are the same is really the point of this passage, in Matt. 9:6 and Mark 2:10
Matt. 9:6 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”…

***Mark 2:10 ***“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”…

Again this is not a good proof text for men having the authority to forgive sins, because it is not the point of the passage.
Correct again, only God can forgive sins. The priest performs a ministry, acting as the “eyes, ears and hands” of Christ, so to speak. The faith of this is expressed in the prayer said during the administration of the sacrament. Notice that the priest is not asked for forgiveness, God is.
O my God,
I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee,
and I detest all my sins,because I dread the loss of heaven,
and the pains of hell (imperfect contrition); but most of all because they offend Thee, my God,
Who are all good and deserving of all my love (perfect contrition).
I firmly resolve,with the help of Thy grace,
to confess my sins, to do penance,

*and to amend my life. *
Amen.
In the early church confession was much more public, but a minister was required. From James, chapter 5…
13 Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. 14 Is any one of you sick? He should **call the elders **of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
The sacrament did not become private until the sixth century. Imagine getting up in church and declaring that you having an affair with someone! Imagine the scandal!

Sub
 
that doesn’t mean we are outside of Grace.
I don’t believe I said you were outside of Grace. I simply said you have turned away from the Church that distributes some of the Graces that Jesus established. But that, in and of itself, does not put you out of Grace.

Think of playing a football game without your star quarterback and/or running back. You can still win the game, but it’s tougher.

And then think that the absence of your quarterback and/or running back and simply because you never choose to put them in the game.
well the NIV says given such authority to men, still in the plural I understand that; however, if the point of this verse was giving men the authority to forgive sins you would expect the sister verse in Mark to say the same thing, but it doesn’t it, it just says that they said we have never seen anything like this. where the verses are the same is really the point of this passage, in Matt. 9:6 and Mark 2:10
Matt. 9:6
“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”…

***Mark 2:10 *“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”…
So, ALL Scripture is profitable, but it’s MORE profitable when it’s confirmed by multiple sources???

No, instead, I think the Jews (that Matthew was written for) had a harder time accepting the whole “forgiveness” thing. While the Roman Christians suffering under various persecutions (that Mark’s Gospel was addressed for) were looking for something else in his Gospel.

In any event, the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to show that this authority was given to more than one individual. And despite your Markan argument, John seems to confirm it.

Again this is not a good proof text for men having the authority to forgive sins, because it is not the point of the passage.Again, this is not a good proof text for men NOT having the authority to forgive sins, because it plainly says that they do… “and then they praised God for giving this authority to men”.

How much clearer do you need it?
 
:bible1: [21] Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
22**] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
well this makes it appear that anyone who has received the Holy Spirit can forgive sins, is that what RC Catholics believe?
 
well this makes it appear that anyone who has received the Holy Spirit can forgive sins, is that what RC Catholics believe?
No. JTBT, you are well aware that the Holy Spirit gifts individuals different ways.

But in the above statement, you are concentrating on the wrong part of the statement. What gives the Apostles the authority to forgive sins is not the breath of the Holy Spirit, but the words “As the Father has sent me, so I send you”. With this, Jesus says that the sins that the Apostles forgive are forgiven by God.

I think the breathing on the Apostles of the Holy Spirit sort of “seals the deal”.

Besides, do you really think that everyone has the right to remit other’s sins?!?!?
 
Notice that the priest is not asked for forgiveness, God is.
Sub
James 5:16 Thereforen confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

John 20: [21] Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”


given these two passages and the general Priesthood of all believers (which I think the RC Church accepts), it looks like this something that anyone who has received the Holy Spirit can do (any Christian).
 
So, ALL Scripture is profitable, but it’s MORE profitable when it’s confirmed by multiple sources???

multiple sources help make the Point of the passage clear.in this case Mark and Matt. repeating the same phrase gives us a clear understanding of what the point of this passage is.

as far as John and James I stand by my point in my earlier post, it seems that this has been given to all Christians, for example James says confess your sins to each other, it does not say confess your sins only to one of the Apostles.
 
multiple sources help make the Point of the passage clear.in this case Mark and Matt. repeating the same phrase gives us a clear understanding of what the point of this passage is.

as far as John and James I stand by my point in my earlier post, it seems that this has been given to all Christians, for example James says confess your sins to each other, it does not say confess your sins only to one of the Apostles.
Except that you are giving the everyday Christian the authority to withhold the forgiveness of sins. That’s a very grave authority that you have allowed just anybody to have. Think about it. If I steal your car, and you refuse to forgive me, my heavenly Father won’t forgive me?

While you are right in looking at context, I’m afraid you are overlooking something. When Jesus teaches just the Apostles, He’s often teaching them on the Church. When Jesus teaches the crowds, He’s teaching on Salvation of the Individual.

I still think you are overlooking the intent of Mark, too. Mark does not spend a lot of time on dialog. He doesn’t even cover the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes. Does that minimalize them in your eyes? No, if you are looking for Mark’s words to “affirm” something in Matthew, you’ll find a lot of teachings minimalized. Mark spends a lot of time showing Jesus’ Glory through His suffering. He’s not trying to overcome His audience’s Jewish-ingrained" biases.
 
well this makes it appear that anyone who has received the Holy Spirit can forgive sins, is that what RC Catholics believe?
No. JTBT, you are well aware that the Holy Spirit gifts individuals different ways.

But in the above statement, you are concentrating on the wrong part of the statement. What gives the Apostles the authority to forgive sins is not the breath of the Holy Spirit, but the words “As the Father has sent me, so I send you”. With this, Jesus says that the sins that the Apostles forgive are forgiven by God.

I think the breathing on the Apostles of the Holy Spirit sort of “seals the deal”.

Besides, do you really think that everyone has the right to remit other’s sins?!?!?
To add to the above, while it may appear to you in your mistaken interpretation of scripture, that is not the understanding of the Catholic Church nor the early church as seen in scripture.

Christ breathed on the apostles not everyone.

We can see later in scripture, when Judas needed to be replaced, this was done in a very specific manner, and through a laying on of hands.
 
To add to the above, while it may appear to you in your mistaken interpretation of scripture, that is not the understanding of the Catholic Church nor the early church as seen in scripture.
John and James is where I can see the justification for confession, but according to others on this blog confession in the early church was not what we see today; confession was indeed more public, and not just to a Priest. which is actually what I would expect from reading John and James
Christ breathed on the apostles not everyone.
I don’t think that it is very clear who was in the room
Except that you are giving the everyday Christian the authority to withhold the forgiveness of sins…
I have not allowed just anybody to have this authority, only Christians.
but your understanding is giving this authority only to a Priest. Do you think that if the Priest refused to forgive you that our heavenly Father would not forgive you? and yes, this is a very grave authority. and I am not speaking of it flipantly
as far as stealing my car, if you asked me for forgiveness and I refuse to forgive you, I would be condeming myself. Matt. 6:15, Mark 11:26 and for that matter the Lord’s Prayer
I still think you are overlooking the intent of Mark, too. .
well look at Luke 5:24 it says the samething as Mark it is the same story in three different books, and the intent is the same in all three to show that the Son of Man has the Authority to forgive sins,
again this is not a good proof text for confession,
  1. it is not the point of the passage,
  2. nowhere in the passage do we see the paralyzed man confess any of his sins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top