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

[ahs]

Just FYI, here is how I was responding…you’ll notice I abruptly cut it off becaues it was simply getting too long-winded and preachy. This kind of response, I am afraid, will push her away. I need a CONCISE way to say these things…or a way to ask questions that would lead her to go and find these things in her Bible:

Okay, so Jm 5:16 is in synch with the Lord’s prayer then, “…forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors…” and if we don’t forgive them, neither will God forgive us (Mt 6:12-15). That makes sense.

It sounds like it is much more than telling our sins to one another though…like it is directly linked to forgiveness…AND that it involves the “elders” in the Church. For example, in the verses immediately prior to Jm 5:16, it says, “let him call for the elders of the Church” and “…if he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven”. So, the whole passage reads like this:

“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. 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 5:13-16).

What strikes me about that is that both Paul (1Cor 11:29-30) and John (in the first Epistle, 1Jn 5:16) mention that there is sin that is greater than other sins and Paul links it to illness, even death, just as James begins his instruction on forgiveness of sin to those who are ill/sick. That suggests to me that, even though we confess to one another our sins against each other…that for some sin we need to go to a Priest…the “elders”. That leads me over to Jn 20:21-23. In that passage, Christ is speaking directly to His Apostles. It is right after His Resurrection, and He is in private room, whose doors have been shut, and He is speaking directly to His Apostles when He says, “whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sin s you retain are retained” (Jn 20:23). But what’s more is that, just before He tells them this, HE breathes on them and says “receive the Holy Spirit”. There is only one other place in all of Scripture where God “breathes” on anyone…and it’s in Genesis…to give “life” to man. I see that as significant…that Christ did something special here…like establish a means by which He chooses to impart His Spirit, His Grace to others via the Priesthood…directly linked to confessing sins. The reason I say directly linked to confession, is because He said “whose sins you forgive…retain…”. Well, how could they forgive or retain sins, if they weren’t expected to hear them?

When I read these verses, in light of Christ saying HE came “not to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law” (Mt 5:16-18) and Paul saying that the old law was a forshadowing of the new (Hb 10:1)…

 

[Gorgias]

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

Right. But remember, non-Catholic Christians don’t have a problem with confessing sins to one another (cf James 5:16); it’s the Catholic notion of confession to a priest that you’re trying to demonstrate. This text doesn’t demonstrate it in the way you wish. Now, you can make the argument (as you have, below), that the OT is a forerunner of the New Covenant, but that doesn’t help much (IMHO), since it doesn’t show confession to a priest here.

[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”.

Ouch. I don’t know that this helps much. The text also doesn’t say “the President of the United States is excluded from being there”, so by the same logic, you would say that the OT suggests that the President of the U.S. might be involved? (OK, that’s a bit of hyperbole, but you get my point, right?)

After all, the inclusion of a priest into this action is only foreseen as an exceptional case, when there is no person to whom restitution may be made. In other words, the law foresees that the normal course of action is confession and restitution without the involvement of a priest. I think you’re charting a difficult course for yourself here, if you try to assert your point using this text.

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.

Two thoughts here: first off, in the Numbers citation, there is definite separation – there is the act of providing restitution to the person or his family, and there is the act of going to the priest. There’s nothing here to suggest that the requirement is to make restitution in the presence of the priest. See Leviticus 19:22. The atonement sacrifice is made at the tent of meeting; the priest’s involvement is to accept the sacrifice being made to God. The priest acts as intermediary between the person and God, and it is God who forgives.

Second, I really think that you do damage to your case by bringing up the sacrifice of atonement for the forgiveness of sins. After all, the response you’re going to hear back is, “but, we no longer need the blood of bulls and goats (cf Hebrews 9:12)! He takes away these sacrifices with his one sacrifice, by which we are made perfect (cf Hebrews 10:14)! What you’re pointing to in the OT has been replaced by Jesus’ once-and-for-all sacrifice, not by some priestly system that replaces it!”

See what I mean? If you appeal to the system of sacrificial offerings, then they’ll already have a prepared comeback for you…

[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?

There are folks on this forum who can speak more knowledgably about Jewish practice under the Mosaic law in the time of Moses and of Jesus. Perhaps one of them will provide some background for us here, in this thread. It’s my understanding that it does not require the presence of a priest.

[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?

No – the priest is at the tent of meeting, in order to accept the ram of atonement. If, however, there is no redeemer (go’el), then the priest is approached, since the restitution defaults to him.

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).

Agreed. However, to be useful, it would need to appear that the normative case involves a priest and that the confession is to be made to him. We don’t have any of that here. Using the texts you’ve provided, you can argue the general case (confession, restitution), but that’s not in play – what’s at stake is the integral involvement of the priest, and we don’t see that here.

But again, in looking at those OT references, we are only seeing the shadow, not the real thing.

Yep… and that’s the problem. It’s easy to over-extrapolate here, and my impression is that you’re toeing that line…

maybe you can help me on that one!)

Sure! What was her argument?

 

[ahs]

Right. But remember, non-Catholic Christians don’t have a problem with confessing sins to one another (cf James 5:16); it’s the Catholic notion of confession to a priest that you’re trying to demonstrate. This text doesn’t demonstrate it in the way you wish. Now, you can make the argument (as you have, below), that the OT is a forerunner of the New Covenant, but that doesn’t help much (IMHO), since it doesn’t show confession to a priest here.

Ouch. I don’t know that this helps much. The text also doesn’t say “the President of the United States is excluded from being there”, so by the same logic, you would say that the OT suggests that the President of the U.S. might be involved? (OK, that’s a bit of hyperbole, but you get my point, right?)

After all, the inclusion of a priest into this action is only foreseen as an exceptional case, when there is no person to whom restitution may be made. In other words, the law foresees that the normal course of action is confession and restitution without the involvement of a priest. I think you’re charting a difficult course for yourself here, if you try to assert your point using this text.

Two thoughts here: first off, in the Numbers citation, there is definite separation – there is the act of providing restitution to the person or his family, and there is the act of going to the priest. There’s nothing here to suggest that the requirement is to make restitution in the presence of the priest. See Leviticus 19:22. The atonement sacrifice is made at the tent of meeting; the priest’s involvement is to accept the sacrifice being made to God. The priest acts as intermediary between the person and God, and it is God who forgives.

Second, I really think that you do damage to your case by bringing up the sacrifice of atonement for the forgiveness of sins. After all, the response you’re going to hear back is, “but, we no longer need the blood of bulls and goats (cf Hebrews 9:12)! He takes away these sacrifices with his one sacrifice, by which we are made perfect (cf Hebrews 10:14)! What you’re pointing to in the OT has been replaced by Jesus’ once-and-for-all sacrifice, not by some priestly system that replaces it!”

See what I mean? If you appeal to the system of sacrificial offerings, then they’ll already have a prepared comeback for you…

There are folks on this forum who can speak more knowledgably about Jewish practice under the Mosaic law in the time of Moses and of Jesus. Perhaps one of them will provide some background for us here, in this thread. It’s my understanding that it does not require the presence of a priest.

No – the priest is at the tent of meeting, in order to accept the ram of atonement. If, however, there is no redeemer (go’el), then the priest is approached, since the restitution defaults to him.

Agreed. However, to be useful, it would need to appear that the normative case involves a priest and that the confession is to be made to him. We don’t have any of that here. Using the texts you’ve provided, you can argue the general case (confession, restitution), but that’s not in play – what’s at stake is the integral involvement of the priest, and we don’t see that here.

Yep… and that’s the problem. It’s easy to over-extrapolate here, and my impression is that you’re toeing that line…

Well, crud. Okay, I see your point now. Using the OT verses I used, I’m only “proving” what non-Catholics already believe…that we are to confess our sins, but not showing why Catholics go to a Priest. Are there any OT verses that help here, or is that practice based only on the NT verses (Jn 20:21-23, Mt 9:8, Mt 18:18…)? And is there a way to link ‘the Priest atoning for sins’ to ‘the Priestly confessional’…or does such a link even need to be made?

Sure! What was her argument?

See a couple posts above, posts #20 and #21 (mods merged the thread where I had posted it as a separate question). It sounds like she isn’t actually arguing at this point…so I want to respond to her in a way that doesn’t chase her away, yet also gets her to consider the Catholic position on confession to a Priest.

 

[Gorgias]

Are there any OT verses that help here, or is that practice based only on the NT verses (Jn 20:21-23, Mt 9:8, Mt 18:18…)? And is there a way to link ‘the Priest atoning for sins’ to ‘the Priestly confessional’…or does such a link even need to be made?

Well, I think that you make the case gently. We know that forgiveness of sins belongs to God alone. And, we see that, in the OT, God reserves that for Himself: when the penitent comes with his ram of atonement, the priest atones for him, but it is God who forgives. Your point about the fact that there is a priestly role in atonement is a good one; it’s just that you can’t prove New Covenant sacramental forgiveness using Mosaic covenant sacrificial practice.

The real place to address your friend, I think, is in her understanding of Reconciliation. She seems to have the idea that praying to Mary is what forgives sin. I think that, if you gently pointed out to her that this isn’t the case, then you might have an avenue for discussion. After all, Jesus forgives sins (during his ministry) because only God can forgive. Jesus then gives the apostles the authority to forgive sins – directly, and not in the “let me confide in my buddies” way that your friend sees it – because He’s God, and has the authority to do so.

Perhaps a brief explanation of the difference between ‘forgiveness’ and ‘penance’ might help. Perhaps a reminder that penance can mean ‘good works’ and not just ‘prayer’ will help drive home the point that we’re not saying that Catholics pray themselves out of serious sin and into heaven, but rather, that our good works give witness to the action of God’s grace in us, once we’ve already been forgiven for our sins…!

(OK – I may be going too deep for the conversation you wish to have with your friend, but here’s a point to hold in your hip pocket for another day: the flip side of forgiveness is the ‘holding bound’ part: the apostles (and their successors the bishops and their helpers the priests) also have the right to ‘hold bound’ any sin. If there’s an effect to forgiveness (i.e., God forgives you), then there’s an effect to holding bound (i.e., watch out – God doesn’t forgive you!). By the same token, if all that this means is “I’ll talk about my sins with my buddies”, then there’s an effect if your buddy says “I don’t forgive you”, right? So, ok – if your buddy says, “I don’t forgive you”, then what is that effect? There’s nothing in the Bible that tells us what the effect of that kind of statement might be! OK – if two people have a disagreement, and they can’t come to terms, then they’ll take it to the Church for resolution – but that’s a question of adjudication, not of reconciliation with God! So, it would seem that “telling my buddies” doesn’t seem to fit the bill of ‘forgiveness of sins’. But, what about the Catholic take on things: is there any effect to an apostle holding a person bound by their sin? Well… yes, in fact! The story of Ananias and Sapphira, in Acts 5, is exactly that kind of story! When they hold back property that they should have shared with the community, Peter tells them that they have sinned against God (cf Acts 5:5)! And, what’s the result? The effect of having that sin held bound against them is that they are struck dead! The practical upshot: there is power and authority that Jesus gave the apostles (and which they handed on to the bishops and they, likewise, to their priests): this authority has real consequences, of which we read in the Bible! OK – enough of this tangent…)

 

[steve_b]

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.

Keep it simple.

John 20:21-23 Jesus established this sacrament.

If all we had to do is go to Jesus privately in prayer, not to a priest, and all our sins are forgiven, Jesus never would have introduced this sacrament. That would be redundant, and people would see right through that.

Obviously Jesus wanted this sacrament for us as a chanel of grace and reconciliation, thereby making it a sacrament we need.

 

[ahs]

Well, I think that you make the case gently. We know that forgiveness of sins belongs to God alone. And, we see that, in the OT, God reserves that for Himself: when the penitent comes with his ram of atonement, the priest atones for him, but it is God who forgives. Your point about the fact that there is a priestly role in atonement is a good one; it’s just that you can’t prove New Covenant sacramental forgiveness using Mosaic covenant sacrificial practice.

The real place to address your friend, I think, is in her understanding of Reconciliation. She seems to have the idea that praying to Mary is what forgives sin. I think that, if you gently pointed out to her that this isn’t the case, then you might have an avenue for discussion. After all, Jesus forgives sins (during his ministry) because only God can forgive. Jesus then gives the apostles the authority to forgive sins – directly, and not in the “let me confide in my buddies” way that your friend sees it – because He’s God, and has the authority to do so.

Perhaps a brief explanation of the difference between ‘forgiveness’ and ‘penance’ might help. Perhaps a reminder that penance can mean ‘good works’ and not just ‘prayer’ will help drive home the point that we’re not saying that Catholics pray themselves out of serious sin and into heaven, but rather, that our good works give witness to the action of God’s grace in us, once we’ve already been forgiven for our sins…!

(OK – I may be going too deep for the conversation you wish to have with your friend, but here’s a point to hold in your hip pocket for another day: the flip side of forgiveness is the ‘holding bound’ part: the apostles (and their successors the bishops and their helpers the priests) also have the right to ‘hold bound’ any sin. If there’s an effect to forgiveness (i.e., God forgives you), then there’s an effect to holding bound (i.e., watch out – God doesn’t forgive you!). By the same token, if all that this means is “I’ll talk about my sins with my buddies”, then there’s an effect if your buddy says “I don’t forgive you”, right? So, ok – if your buddy says, “I don’t forgive you”, then what is that effect? There’s nothing in the Bible that tells us what the effect of that kind of statement might be! OK – if two people have a disagreement, and they can’t come to terms, then they’ll take it to the Church for resolution – but that’s a question of adjudication, not of reconciliation with God! So, it would seem that “telling my buddies” doesn’t seem to fit the bill of ‘forgiveness of sins’. But, what about the Catholic take on things: is there any effect to an apostle holding a person bound by their sin? Well… yes, in fact! The story of Ananias and Sapphira, in Acts 5, is exactly that kind of story! When they hold back property that they should have shared with the community, Peter tells them that they have sinned against God (cf Acts 5:5)! And, what’s the result? The effect of having that sin held bound against them is that they are struck dead! The practical upshot: there is power and authority that Jesus gave the apostles (and which they handed on to the bishops and they, likewise, to their priests): this authority has real consequences, of which we read in the Bible! OK – enough of this tangent…)

Thanks for the great explanations Gorgias! Your “tangent” is being safely tucked into my hip pocket as we speak.

Keep it simple.

John 20:21-23 Jesus established this sacrament.

If all we had to do is go to Jesus privately in prayer, not to a priest, and all our sins are forgiven, Jesus never would have introduced this sacrament. That would be redundant, and people would see right through that.

Obviously Jesus wanted this sacrament for us as a chanel of grace and reconciliation, thereby making it a sacrament we need.

Amen. And thanks for the reminding us that sometimes the simplest answer will suffice.

 

[onthisrock]

We know as Catholics that going to a priest in the Sacrement of Reconciliation that the priest is in “Personae Christae” Christ set this up personally when he breathed the Holy Spirit on the Aposltles and gave them the power to bind and loose sins. When we go to a priest, even one that is not too gentle, we are still going to God. Quite frankly, God knows you already committed the sins, the priest fortunately gives us guidance to return back to Christ as you were prior to the sin. Penance are not an equation, they are what God has worked through the priest on your behalf to become closer to you. Many priests will say…“Do something nice for the person you gossiped about” or “read a certain Bible verse”…It’s not some kind of magic.

 

[cjbaggins]

I have three thoughts about this topic:

(1) this has been covered in a link far above my post, but to me, the most important Bible passage is the one regarding Christ giving the Apostles the power to forgive sins, and to bind or loose sins. In order for them to decide if they should be forgiven or not, they need to be heard. That says it all right there, to me.

(2) the priest is most definitely representing Jesus Himself in the confessional. No question. Remember, too, that he is representing the entire Body of Christ. We need to be reconciled to God (the Head) and the rest of the Body. The priest, by nature of his sacrament has power to stand in for both.

(3) it is very human to sometimes feel like we may not be forgiven, especially when we go directly to God. Hearing another human being tell us we are forgiven is very powerful. For me, struggling from scrupulosity, this is of paramount importance, but Christ, in His infinite compassion and understanding, knew it would be important for all to hear, even those not afflicted in that manner.

Just my :twocents:

cj

 

[Missprisc]

Heb 4:14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Heb 7:23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office,
Heb 7:24 but he (Jesus) holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.
Heb 7:25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

1Pe 2:2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation–
1Pe 2:3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
1Pe 2:4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious,
1Pe 2:5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
1Pe 2:7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
1Pe 2:8 and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

 

[ahs]

Heb 4:14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Heb 7:23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office,
Heb 7:24 but he (Jesus) holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.
Heb 7:25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

1Pe 2:2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation–
1Pe 2:3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
1Pe 2:4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious,
1Pe 2:5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
1Pe 2:7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
1Pe 2:8 and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Missprisc,

Thanks so much for tying in those verses! AMEN! In the passages you gave we see that we indeed have One Mediator, Christ, who forgives our sins, and in the others we see the means by which He has chosen to do this, in His ministry of Reconciliation (2Cor 5:17-20) where we confess our sins to one another (Acts 19:18, James 5:13-16), especially to those whom he gave the authority to bind or loose our sins (Jn 20:21, John 20:22-23, Mt 18:18). It is so wonderful that our God has chosen to set things up in a way where we share in His Work.

 

[LionHeart777]

Just a quick suggestion or two for your discussion:

-she said: “And how saying 30 Holy Marys cleanses you from the sin…” Here you might want to explain the difference in Catholic Theology about the eternal consequences of sin and the temporal. Penances have to do with temporal punishment.

• Also, I would back up your arguments with a few citations from the Early Church Father’s as their writings really affected and questioned my former (mis)understanding of Scripture when I was a Protestant.

 

[DavidWJackson]

Going straight to Christ with your confessions with a contrite heart is fine, but it has the human draw back of erasing the humility which helps to nurture one away from sin. God/Christ gave the first Bishops of His Church, the Apostles, the power to hear confession and forgive us of our sin. Please refer to original post for Holy Scripture verse, chapter and book for this source. So, if God/Christ gave this power to His Priest for this purpose, should we not partake of it? Is this not a specific instruction for the faithful with out being completely spelled out? God/Christ also gave His Apostles/Bishops the authority to bind or unbind the world to any and all things, including our sins. Remember, God is in control and He set up the hierarchy of His Church. God is the one who gave the instructions for the offices of the Church and the names of these offices, not man. Just as Christ did nothing of Himself, but only what the Father told and showed Him. Thus, allowing God the Father not God Incarnate to remain in control of all. That is why I use (God/Christ) above. The “Diary of Saint Maria Faustina” comes to mind when I think of the importance of confession through a Priest. Christ can and will speak directly through the mouth of a Priest to speak His console and forgiveness over sin and give direction to His followers. Of course Christ can do this with anyone, but it seems Christ prefers to use those He chose for God’s ministry for this particular purpose. Confessing before a Priest is confessing directly to Christ through one whom Christ uses to relay His response directly back to you. Following the directions of a Priest in all things Holy is truly to be following God’s personal request to you.