Confession of Sins Not Necessary

[Catholic_Hammer]

This all boils down to the “Communion of Saints” and the belief that “Holy Orders” is a Sacrament (as ordained by The Son, The Father, and The Holy Spirit]).

Priests, in the catholic (and Catholic) tradition, are representatives of the “saints” (and Saints).

In order to “confess sins to one another” we confess them to a priest, who is the Earthly representation of The Saints, The Son, The Father, and The Holy Spirit].

 

[Sabda]

This is purely hyperbole as not all ritual is rejected as man-made. And even those recognized as man-made, many are wonderful practices.

Only rituals developed by men over time we must recognize as not instituted by God for all men to observe and practice…

Which traditions were instituted by God and which by men?

A new Covenant has been cut with us. We are not to observe the Covenant cut with Israel.

Jesus, Himself, said that He came to FULFILL not abolish.

This is also more hyperbole that has no place in reality.

If one is of faith, then one is, by definition, of obedience.

We all recognize those commands as given by God to observe.

Like when the Apostles did not observe the Sacred Tradition of the Jews by not ritualistically washing?

What bad happened to them for this?

Umm, weren’t they with Jesus when that happened? So is your problem with Jesus then?

Mixing GOD’s directives with MEN’s directives is never a good practice.

Because we all can see God’s directives.

Everything that came centuries later by the words of men are not God’s directives.

According to YOUR opinion or is that according to history?

The Scriptures say to confess our sins to one another.

That means those you are confessing your sins to also confess their sins to you in the same manner.

One another.

…

The priest DOES confess his sins. In fact most priest confess there sins more often than most lay Catholics do. Nowhere does it say that you are to confess your sins to every Tom, Dick,and Harry. In fact the letter to Timothy was a pastoral letter so it was speaking to the leaders of the Church not just any Tom, Dick, and Harry.

The only traditions that I see that were definitely done a with in the Bible were the need for circumcision (replaced by Baptism) and the dietary laws.

 

[guanophore]

This sort of reasoning … “Jesus, me and my bible” version of Christianity seem to look at any sort of ritual as unneccessary and “man-made”, which completely ignores some very important lessons to be found in the Old Testament.

This is purely hyperbole as not all ritual is rejected as man-made. And even those recognized as man-made, many are wonderful practices.

Only rituals developed by men over time we must recognize as not instituted by God for all men to observe and practice.

You are contradicting yourself, Atemi. You are saying that there are some rituals you don’t reject (presuming you believe they are from God), hten you say that there are many wonderful “man-made” practices. How do these come into being if they are not developed by man over time?

And how do you go about determining which are instituted by man, and which by God? The sacraments were instituted by Christ, and bear the stamp of his authority.

God has shown Himself to be very legalistic at times. I could not fathom turning a woman into a pillar of salt for merely turning her head the wrong way, and the Passover just baffles me to no end.

It’s a good thing some of these Sola-Fide folks weren’t among the population of the ancient Israelites, because they probably would have decided “that whole business about sacrificing a lamb and having to eat it dressed that way and take the blood and smear it on the door…those are just inventions…traditions of men is what they are…God knows we are Israelites without us having to go through all of that ritual, so we don’t have to do any of that…”

A new Covenant has been cut with us. We are not to observe the Covenant cut with Israel.

You are right, but he is not saying that we should “observe” the rituals, but learn from them. They are shadows meant for our instruction.

Rom 15:4
4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope."

You seem very closed to this instruction.

(continued)

 

[guanophore]

Why is it that whenever someone in the Old Testament disregards the formalities of ritual, or a directive that seems logically irrelevant to the situation (think Lot’s wife here) something BAD always happens to that person ? More importantly, why do some people thousands of years later think that they will be any better off when they take the liberty of deciding which of God’s directives are mandatory, and which ones have no bearing.

This is also more hyperbole that has no place in reality.

On the contrary, it is a good example of one of those “shadows” for our instruction. It may not have any basis in YOUR reality, because you have cut yourself off from part of the teaching.

If one is of faith, then one is, by definition, of obedience.

I agree with you, which is why it is so puzzling that you deny the sacraments and commandments of Jesus.

We all recognize those commands as given by God to observe.

And what if you don’ t recognize? Does that make the commands any less valid, just because you do not recognize them as valid? I don’t think so. what you have done here is place your own sense of recognition above the teaching of Christ.

Like when the Apostles did not observe the Sacred Tradition of the Jews by not ritualistically washing?

What bad happened to them for this?

No, not like that. Jesus set aside some of the traditions, but most of them, he left in place. Matt 5:18-19
8 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

To deny that we are expected to obey them defies the teaching of Jesus.

Mixing GOD’s directives with MEN’s directives is never a good practice.

You are right, of course. The problem here is that you have set aside those commmissioned to make this distinction, and have made yourself judge over which is which.

Because we all can see God’s directives.

Clearly not, or you would not deny the sacraments.

Everything that came centuries later by the words of men are not God’s directives.

This is a baseless assertion, and shows that you have no faith in the promises of Christ.

The Scriptures say to confess our sins to one another.

That means those you are confessing your sins to also confess their sins to you in the same manner.

One another. …

It is none of my business with whom you confess your sins. I just hope you include disobedience against the commandments of Jesus and the Apostolic teaching in them, so that you can be forgiven.

 

[EMAC]

This sort of reasoning always gets me. The “Jesus, me and my bible” version of Christianity seem to look at any sort of ritual as unneccessary and “man-made”, which completely ignores some very important lessons to be found in the Old Testament.

Like it or not, God has shown Himself to be very legalistic at times. I could not fathom turning a woman into a pillar of salt for merely turning her head the wrong way, and the Passover just baffles me to no end.

It’s a good thing some of these Sola-Fide folks weren’t among the population of the ancient Israelites, because they probably would have decided “that whole business about sacrificing a lamb and having to eat it dressed that way and take the blood and smear it on the door…those are just inventions…traditions of men is what they are…God knows we are Israelites without us having to go through all of that ritual, so we don’t have to do any of that…”

Why is it that whenever someone in the Old Testament disregards the formalities of ritual, or a directive that seems logically irrelevant to the situation (think Lot’s wife here) something BAD always happens to that person ? More importantly, why do some people thousands of years later think that they will be any better off when they take the liberty of deciding which of God’s directives are mandatory, and which ones have no bearing.

Personally, I like to err on the side of caution. The bible clearly tells me to confess my sins, and the bible clearly tells me that Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to the Apostles. Even if we were to go on Scripture alone, who in the world would the people in first century Rome confessed to, if not the Apostles (leaders of the Church), who were the only ones who are specifically given the power to forgive sin in the New Testament.

Amen!