Confession to a Priest vs. going straight to God...alone

[ahs]

I’ve been listening to some John Martignoni CD’s and I started to take down notes and put the apologetics lessons in my own words…so it doesn’t sound “copied” when I share it with others. The one on Baptism and Original Sin was easy…I just wrote down all the Scriptures verses and quoted Scripture directly…with extremely few words in between. But for “Confession” I tried a different approach, and I’d like for anyone who is willing to please read and critique this…find any glaring (or subtle) conflicts with Catholic Doctrine. It’s fairly long (just over 1300 words, not counting the intro where I defend using the OT (cf. 2Tim 3:16, Hb 10:1, Mt 5:16-18).

I’ll split it into 3 posts:​

“Confession to a Priest, or to God Alone?”

In Leviticus 5:5-6, we read, “then whoever is guilty in any of these cases shall confess that sin that he has incurred, and as his sin offering for the 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.”
And in Numbers we read, “And the Lord said to Moses, “Say to the people of Israel, When a man or woman commits any of the sins that men commit by breaking faith with the Lord, and that person is guilty, he shall confess his sin which he has committed; and he shall make full restitution for his wrong, adding a fifth to it, and giving it to him to whom he did the wrong. But if the man has no kinsmen to whom restitution may be made for the wrong, the restitution for the wrong shall go for the priest, in addition to the ram of atonement with which atonement is made for him. And every offering, all the holy things of the people of Israel, which they bring to the priest, shall be his; and every man’s holy things shall be his; whatever any man gives to the priest shall be his.”” (Nm 5:5-10)

So, what are we seeing in the OT? We see 1) confession of the sin committed, 2) a form of penance, specifically in these cases a “sin offering” AND “restitution” for the sin and 3) the person is NOT to go straight to God, but through a priest. God set it up so that they were to go through a priest for confessing their sins, and this going through a priest is a foreshadowing of things to come (cf. Hb 10:1, Mt 5:16-18). So, what do we see in the New Testament?

“…and they were baptized by him [John the Baptist] in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (Mt 3:6). Okay, so it looks like the Jews are still observing the confession of sins to a man…whom they believe is a prophet…a man whom God works through. Let’s look further, in Mt 9:2-8, along with Mk 2:7, which is the same story.

Jesus tells a paralytic to “take heart”, that his “sins are forgiven” (Mt 9:2). But what objection do we hear? “This man is blaspheming” (Mt 9:3, Mk 2:7), “who can forgive sin but God alone?” (Mk2:7). But we know that it is the Scribes that make this objection, and as Christ points out, while it is true that God alone forgives sins, this statement betrays a limited understanding of God’s Power. Jesus shows them the shallowness of their words so, “that you may know the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mt 9:6). And then what does Scripture tell us? “When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (Mt 9:8). It says, “to MEN”, plural…not just to “a Man” (Jesus) but to MEN. But maybe this is just a typographical error in the Scriptures. Let’s look at some other passages in the Scripture to see if it clears this up for us.

 

[ahs]

(cont…)

In 1John 1:9, we read, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Okay, so this sounds a little more palatable for those who say we just go straight to God, and God alone…or does it? Does it say HOW we confess our sins? Does it say to go straight to God, and God ALONE? No, it doesn’t say that. Maybe there are other passages we can look at to get some better instructions on this.

“Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices” (Acts 19:18). Oh…this makes it sound like these new believers were confessing their sins to the Apostles or other leaders in Christ’s Church. Can that be right? Let’s look at James chapter 5. “Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up [say…that sounds like the Catholic Sacrament called “Anointing of the Sick”!]; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven” (James 5:13-15). Wait, is it saying that he will be forgiven because of the prayers of the presbyters/elders? “Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16). Yep…that’s exactly what it’s saying. But do we confess to just ANYONE? Or should we confess to someone to whom Christ has given the authority to forgive sins? I mean, sure, God alone forgives sins…and so far we see that God has set things up so that we go to a priest for this, but did He REALLY give such authority to certain men??

“Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even I send you” (Jn 20:21). Okay, how did the Father send Christ? He sent Him with the power to forgive sins. And now Christ is essentially telling His Apostles that they are to do likewise… as the Father has sent Christ, so Christ sends the Apostles. But surely that doesn’t really mean forgiving sins, right? “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**”” (John 20:22-23). Yep, Christ could not have been more explicitly clear. Christ has set it up so that we are to go through a Priest for the confession of our sins…in a more profound way which is the revealed “good thing to come” which was shadowed in the old law. An interesting note here also is that “He breathed on them”. How many times in the entirety of Scripture does God “breathe” on anyone? I can only think of one other instance where He does this…and it’s in Genesis.

 

[ahs]

(cont…last part…)

We can also look at 2Cor 5:17-20: “Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” Yep…that, in context of the other several passages from Scripture we have looked at so far, sounds EXACTLY like the Catholic teaching on the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

In Mt 18:18, Christ tells His Apostles, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”. Here Christ gives the other Apostles a share in the authority He had already given to Peter in Mt 16:19, “I will give you [Peter] the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”. Notice Christ says “whatever” you bind/loose. “Whatever” means…well…whatever…no implied restrictions there that I can see. This is a judiciary power of binding and loosing, coupled with the same power we saw in John 20:21-23 to forgive or retain sins, given to the pastors of Christ’s Church by Christ Himself. The obligation of auricular confession to a Priest is based upon these.

So, in fulfilling the old law…revealing the “good thing” that was to come, which was only shadowed in the old (cf. Hb 10:1, Mt 5:16-18), Christ has given authority to the leaders in His Church, and the new version of the old looks like this: 1) confessing of the sins committed, 2) to a Priest, through whom Christ has chosen to act, in a ministry…a Sacrament…through which Christ has chosen to impart His Grace to us (cf. 2Cor 5:17-20), 3) involving a penance, by which we pay restitution for the temporal damage inflicted to ourselves and others…while the actual sin itself is forgiven (or retained)…by someone whom Christ has given such authority to (cf. Jn 20:21-23).

 

[wllmjoseph]

I wanted to thank you for your post. It was very thorough, detailed and scripture based. With the reasoning and logic of your post I don’t see how anyone could deny that the Sacrament of Reconcilian is in line with the tradions of the OT and that in the NT our Lord clearly commisioned the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Great read. Thank you.

 

[MJCamp]

Wish I could save this…very well done

 

[Abbigaelann]

Phenomenal work. Referenced to the hilt. I truly mean that I think you did a good job.

But why does it make sense? What does it mean to society? What does it mean personally? “Because it’s the rules”. right. Why? What is the sense in our life and times?

Now, can we document and cross reference what I’m about to say?

What are the psychological factors involved? We are sensioned entities, sensory manifestations are necessary (unless Holy Orders supercede some heavy duty ones). For one, we have to remember the transgressions. Two, we have to face up to these. Three, we have to say them to another human being-open, verbal, to hear yourself say you did this. We learn by repetition. So how stupid do we feel when we have to admit the same error more than once? Does this not assist us in self help toward extinguishing that behavior? So how much more does it mean, to actually hear, to feel, to know those words of forgiveness in a human, real, there voice, on a wavelength we’re used to? And why don’t we just bring it to the whole church (but the priest does)? Some fundamentalist churches have tried this. I’ve witnessed some of it…the Catholic Church is older and wiser in their techniques. In fundamentalist churches, the open verbal forum via ‘witnessing’ or ‘testifying’ leads to gossip, church divisions, embarrassments, etc. The Catholic church tries to minimize this and fulfill what they have been told to do in scripture. Now, what does this process do, in your opinion, to society overall? The church community? How much larger are most catholic parishes, yet what cohesion- global cohesion?

Oopsie…did I mention that I’m a firm believer this societal close to panacea?

 

[Church_Militant]

If you don’t have this posted to your own blog then you’re messing up Dave.

 

[ahs]

Thanks so much for the kind responses and feedback!

Okay, Michael, you have officially talked me into it, after fighting it for a year now. I just created a “blog” to store these things this morning. If you have any advice on how to set it up, drop me a PM…check out the link in my new signature.

 

[ahs]

…We learn by repetition. So how stupid do we feel when we have to admit the same error more than once? Does this not assist us in self help toward extinguishing that behavior? So how much more does it mean, to actually hear, to feel, to know those words of forgiveness in a human, real, there voice, on a wavelength we’re used to? And why don’t we just bring it to the whole church (but the priest does)? Some fundamentalist churches have tried this. I’ve witnessed some of it…the Catholic Church is older and wiser in their techniques. In fundamentalist churches, the open verbal forum via ‘witnessing’ or ‘testifying’ leads to gossip, church divisions, embarrassments, etc. The Catholic church tries to minimize this and fulfill what they have been told to do in scripture. Now, what does this process do, in your opinion, to society overall? The church community? How much larger are most catholic parishes, yet what cohesion- global cohesion?

Oopsie…did I mention that I’m a firm believer this societal close to panacea?

I think I understand you correctly, and yes, auricular confession to a Priest does 2 things (well, several…but 2 in focus here): 1) it forces us to truly admit our fault and experience the humilty of having to tell someone what we did…helping us to curb the behavior, and 2) keeps it private to avoid the gossip, as you mentioned.

More than that, though, it really IS going to God with out confession…but it is going to God in the way that God gave us to go to Him for confession. God chose to impart this Grace on us via a Priest…and as you mentioned, there are plenty good reasons for that that even we humans can discern…and maybe even reasons we can’t.

 

[fisherman_carl]

James tells us to call the elders of the church and to confess to one another and have them pray for us so that we may be healed, for the prayer of a righteous man avails much.

That reminds me of a story I recently read of Padre Pio. A young man was diagnosed with a lung disease and given medication. The medication worked for a while, but then the disease came back even worse. It looked like the man was not going to make it. The young man wasn’t ready to die and he prayed that someone more worthy than him would pray for him. Then during the evening a monk with a beard appeared to him and prayed over him. The next day he felt he was healed. So he went to the doctors and they confirmed that he no longer had the lung disease. The doctors couldn’t explain how he was healed.

The young man did not tell anyone except his mother what had happened with the monk. His mother and him assumed it was some long past Saint that visited him. The young man had to go to someone’s house and noticed that there was a picture on the wall of the monk who had visited him and to his surprise it was a photograph. He asked the owner who that was and he was told about Padre Pio. The young man realizing Padre Pio was still alive had to visit him. Upon visiting him he went to confession with Padre Pio. While the young man was giving his confession Padre Pio out of the blue asked him how his lungs were. To which the young man replied they are healed. Then Padre Pio praised God and gave thanks.

 

[ahs]

James tells us to call the elders of the church and to confess to one another and have them pray for us so that we may be healed, for the prayer of a righteous man avails much.

That reminds me of a story I recently read of Padre Pio. A young man was diagnosed with a lung disease and given medication. The medication worked for a while, but then the disease came back even worse. It looked like the man was not going to make it. The young man wasn’t ready to die and he prayed that someone more worthy than him would pray for him. Then during the evening a monk with a beard appeared to him and prayed over him. The next day he felt he was healed. So he went to the doctors and they confirmed that he no longer had the lung disease. The doctors couldn’t explain how he was healed.

The young man did not tell anyone except his mother what had happened with the monk. His mother and him assumed it was some long past Saint that visited him. The young man had to go to someone’s house and noticed that there was a picture on the wall of the monk who had visited him and to his surprise it was a photograph. He asked the owner who that was and he was told about Padre Pio. The young man realizing Padre Pio was still alive had to visit him. Upon visiting him he went to confession with Padre Pio. While the young man was giving his confession Padre Pio out of the blue asked him how his lungs were. To which the young man replied they are healed. Then Padre Pio praised God and gave thanks.

I LOVE that story!!

 

[zz912]

Excellent. A few other references, Job’s friends being required to have Job pray on their behalf to have their sin forgiven. King David with confessing to Nathan and being forgiven (and also receiving temporal punishment AFTER his sin is forgiven), and 2 Cor 5:18, where Paul speaks about the ministry of reconciliation (i.e. confession).

 

[Abbigaelann]

Aside:
Love the Padre Pio story.

How can one be militant about living the Love?

 

[Aussieman88]

Love your post. But.

In a couple of places it sounds like you are being a smart ***. If I was an anti catholic person reading this, those bits would make me annoyed which would dull the effect of it. Instead of having a revelation, I might just let my annoyance become anger and not actually take in what I’m reading. You want it to be informative without any attitude which takes the power out of what you are saying.

That’s my honest opinion.

and thanks I’ve wanted to find this info on and off for years.

 

[Gorgias]

In Leviticus 5:5-6, we read, “then whoever is guilty in any of these cases shall confess that sin that he has incurred, and as his sin offering for the 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.”
And in Numbers we read, “And the Lord said to Moses, “Say to the people of Israel, When a man or woman commits any of the sins that men commit by breaking faith with the Lord, and that person is guilty, he shall confess his sin which he has committed; and he shall make full restitution for his wrong, adding a fifth to it, and giving it to him to whom he did the wrong. But if the man has no kinsmen to whom restitution may be made for the wrong, the restitution for the wrong shall go for the priest, in addition to the ram of atonement with which atonement is made for him. And every offering, all the holy things of the people of Israel, which they bring to the priest, shall be his; and every man’s holy things shall be his; whatever any man gives to the priest shall be his.”” (Nm 5:5-10)

So, what are we seeing in the OT? We see 1) confession of the sin committed, 2) a form of penance, specifically in these cases a “sin offering” AND “restitution” for the sin and 3) the person is NOT to go straight to God, but through a priest. God set it up so that they were to go through a priest for confessing their sins, and this going through a priest is a foreshadowing of things to come (cf. Hb 10:1, Mt 5:16-18).

Nice work, but I think that there are still some rough edges that you have to take a look at…!

First, in the Levitical text that you cite, what we see is a particular class of sins, and that class only: sins that are inadvertently committed. This isn’t the general case of sin, but rather, the case in which a person does something and only later finds out that it was sinful. (I’m not even going to get into how the Church sees this kind of sin, since that would lead to an anachronistic analysis of sin and guilt.) However, in this case, I think that it could be argued that the ‘confession’ is meant to be an admission of guilt – that is, an after-the-fact admission of recently-recognized sinful behavior. As such, I’m not certain that it represents the general case, per se. In any case, however, there’s no indication in the text that the ‘confession’ is to be given to the priest; the act of confessing is distinct from the act of reparation (which is the point at which a priest gets involved).

Second, in the citation from Numbers, there is no involvement by priests at all. (In the case that a person cannot pay damages to the person or his relative, then the damages to be paid are to be paid to the priest; otherwise, priests don’t get involved.) There is no notion of confession to priests here.

I think that, if you were to use these texts to me (and if I were a non-Catholic Christian), I’d be able to counter your assertions by arguing that the notion of confessing to one another is all good and fine – and is Scriptural – but as these very citations show, there’s no notion of sacramental confession to a priest as a required element of the forgiveness of sin!

 

[thistle]

scripturecatholic.com/confession.html

 

[ahs]

scripturecatholic.com/confession.html

Many thanks!!! I’m going to post that link to my blog.

 

[ahs]

Love your post. But.

In a couple of places it sounds like you are being a smart ***. If I was an anti catholic person reading this, those bits would make me annoyed which would dull the effect of it. Instead of having a revelation, I might just let my annoyance become anger and not actually take in what I’m reading. You want it to be informative without any attitude which takes the power out of what you are saying.

That’s my honest opinion.

and thanks I’ve wanted to find this info on and off for years.

Yes, I can see where some of my comments sound “smart-a**” like. But that’s not the tone I speak with. I can, and will, keep in mind how my readers might “hear” my words, but ultimately there’s nothing I can do to affect what a reader will bring into it. Anyway, I will keep this in mind as I write more blog posts. Thanks for the feedback!

 

[ahs]

Nice work, but I think that there are still some rough edges that you have to take a look at…!

First, in the Levitical text that you cite, what we see is a particular class of sins, and that class only: sins that are inadvertently committed. This isn’t the general case of sin, but rather, the case in which a person does something and only later finds out that it was sinful. (I’m not even going to get into how the Church sees this kind of sin, since that would lead to an anachronistic analysis of sin and guilt.) However, in this case, I think that it could be argued that the ‘confession’ is meant to be an admission of guilt – that is, an after-the-fact admission of recently-recognized sinful behavior. As such, I’m not certain that it represents the general case, per se. In any case, however, there’s no indication in the text that the ‘confession’ is to be given to the priest; the act of confessing is distinct from the act of reparation (which is the point at which a priest gets involved).

Hmm. That’s a good point I had not seen. Even with this in mind, though, I don’t think the case for Priestly confessions is diminished in using this reference. It still makes an example for 1) confessing of a sin, 2) a reparation for sin, even one non-intentional ro recognized after-the-fact, and 3) a Priest is involved in making the reparation.

If we see the Old as a foreshadow and fulfillment of the New (Hb 10:1 and Mt 5:16-18), then we’d expect the Old to be only a shadow of the reality…so the question could be, “what might the fulfillment of this practice look like, where even for a less serious/only-recently-recognized-sin, one must 1) admit.confess 2) offer reparation and 3) involve a Priest in that reparation instead of going directly to God alone?”

Second, in the citation from Numbers, there is no involvement by priests at all. (In the case that a person cannot pay damages to the person or his relative, then the damages to be paid are to be paid to the priest; otherwise, priests don’t get involved.) There is no notion of confession to priests here.

I don’t know…it says, “…When a man or woman commits any of the sins that men commit by breaking faith with the Lord, and that person is guilty, he shall confess his sin which he has committed [1]… make full restitution …to him to whom he did the wrong [2]. But if the man has no kinsmen…the restitution for the wrong shall go for the priest [3], in addition to the ram of atonement with which atonement is made for him.[4]"

[1] Does it say HOW he should confess his sin (whether it be with a Priest present or not)? If one can rightly say, “it doesn’t include “Priest” there, so a Priest isn’t involved”, another can just as rightly say “it doesn’t EXCLUDE a Priest there, so a Priest MIGHT be involved”. And since it goes on to involve a sacrifice for atonement which WOULD include a Priest, I see no reason to believe that a Priest is not involved here at the beginning of the act of reparation. Unless one would suggest that the atonemnt sacrifice was not connected to the restitution…but in the context here, I don’t see how they can be separated.

[2] Does it say HOW to make the restitution…whether it is to be in private between them, or in the presence of a Priest? Again, same logic as [1] since it goes on to invovle an atonment sacrifice.

[3] What Priest? Why did a Priest suddenly pop into the picture? When did he get there? What is he there for? Is he not there for the atonement sacrifice that will be made for the reparation of the man’s guilt?

[4] Yep…(answering [3] ).

So, still, even if this doesn’t look exactly like sacramental confession today, it still invovles 1)confessing a sin 2) reparation for the sin and 3) a Priest is there to offer the atonement sacrifice. It should not be expected to look exactly like sacramental confession…because it’s only a shadow of it (cf. Hb 10:1)…only the old law yet to be fulfilled (cf. Mt 5:16-18).

I think that, if you were to use these texts to me (and if I were a non-Catholic Christian), I’d be able to counter your assertions by arguing that the notion of confessing to one another is all good and fine – and is Scriptural – but as these very citations show, there’s no notion of sacramental confession to a priest as a required element of the forgiveness of sin!

Yes, and I am actually in such a position as we speak with a non-Catholic friend who has said exactly that. But again, in looking at those OT references, we are only seeing the shadow, not the real thing. (I have not responded to her yet…not really sure how I’m going to yet…maybe you can help me on that one!)

 

[ahs]

A friend of mine recently told me she disagrees with the Catholic practice of confessing to a Priest. I offered some thoughts about what I read in the Bible with some questions, and she has answered. I’d like to go a bit deeper with her, but my response is getting REALLY long, and I see myself “preaching” in it rather than askign questions. Below is my first response, with hers that followed. Any suggestions on how to respond to her again without being “preachy”? What are some good questions to ask that would encourage her to go to teh Scriptures and get “preached” at via the Bible instead of via “me”?

(Me) I did some reading and I wonder if you can help me out here [about confession to a Priest instead of straight to God]. I’m really wanting to do the right thing and it’s looking like the Bible actually has a fair bit to say about this topic.

For example, the Bible says we shoud “confess [our] sins to one another” (James 5:16). It also says that God gave authority to “men” to forgive sins…(Mt 9:8 and Jn 20:21-23). It looks to me like God set things up so that we should go to a Priest (Lv 5:5-6, Nmbrs 5:5-10) for confesiing sins, and not just go straight to God Alone…
…Can you help me understand what these Scripture passages mean, if we indeed are not supposed to confess to a Priest, and instead go to straight to God? What is the Bible saying here in those passages?

Her response: Okay here is my take on the passages. As for God giving the authority for men to forgive sins. To me it means that if you do someone wrong God gave us the compassion for others as well as the ability to forgive for trespasses against us. As for confessing our sins to one another, I don’t have a solid answer. I see it as meaning to be honest with ourselves as we’ll as to others in the most basic of ways. In today’s terms; it would to like telling a friend of a sin. Confiding in a friend or family. It is release of the guilt to be able to talk about whatever the sinner did. Sharing and learning from one another.
As for confessing to a priest, I am in no way saying it is wrong confessing your sins to a priest. I just don’t agree with the practice. And how saying 30 Holy Marys cleanses you from the sin. If I grew up being a Cathlic I probably understand. But the not knowing and the sharing of different Christian beliefs and traditions is interesting.
I hope all this makes since.