Confession to Jesus Christ (No Priest)

[Thom18]

Not only did Jesus give the apostles a share in His ministry to forgive sins, He also gave them the authority to retain someone’s sins. How would your friend respond to this?

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

I would tell him " I can make the Bible seem to teach whatever I want by choosing random verses and placing them together too, just like you just did. So we go by what the early church thinks The Bible and the teachings of the apostles meant.

The Bible clearly says God gave certain men authority to forgive sins and this is where we get confession from and it had been around in one form or another since the beginning and this is a historically recorded fact."

 

[po18guy]

In 100% of the recorded cases where Jesus forgave sins, He told the sinner that their sins were forgiven. Their ears heard the words. That is the divine intent, the divine teaching, the divine pattern. Mark 2:5, Luke 5:20, 7:48.

He gave the apostles power over sin. That is 100% biblical and repeated more than once.

If your friend has not heard the words of absolution, he is set for a terrible shock on the day of his death. He has presumed the Lord forgave him - a sin in itself.

 

[HeDa]

OP Tell your friend that the priest can never ever repeat to anyone what has been said in Confession and he also has a right to not answer if he is asked if he has seen or heard a person confessing.

Also tell him that the priest forgives sins " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit". It is not the priest who forgives but the Triune God.

"ABSOLUTION (From the Rite of Reconciliation of Individual Penitents)

Then the priest extends his hands over the penitent’s head (or at least extends his right hand) and says:

God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself

and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit. The penitent answers: Amen."

 

[Vico]

A non-Catholic defended “no priest has authority to forgive sins” like this.

Him: Priests can’t forgive sins.
…

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1424… It is called the sacrament of forgiveness , since by the priest’s sacramental absolution God grants the penitent “pardon and peace.” …

1495 Only priests who have received the faculty of absolving from the authority of the Church can forgive sins in the name of Christ.

1449 The formula of absolution used in the Latin Church expresses the essential elements of this sacrament: the Father of mercies is the source of all forgiveness. He effects the reconciliation of sinners through the Passover of his Son and the gift of his Spirit, through the prayer and ministry of the Church:

God, the Father of mercies,
through the death and the resurrection of his Son
has reconciled the world to himself
and sent the Holy Spirit among us
for the forgiveness of sins;
through the ministry of the Church
may God give you pardon and peace,
and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.48

1481 The Byzantine Liturgy recognizes several formulas of absolution, in the form of invocation, which admirably express the mystery of forgiveness:

“May the same God, who through the Prophet Nathan forgave David when he confessed his sins, who forgave Peter when he wept bitterly, the prostitute when she washed his feet with her tears, the Pharisee, and the prodigal son, through me, a sinner, forgive you both in this life and in the next and enable you to appear before his awe-inspiring tribunal without condemnation, he who is blessed for ever and ever. Amen.”

 

[TULIPed]

I actually think confession to priests is a good, healthy thing - after all, a priest is (presumably) a believer and as already mentioned, scripture discusses confessing to other believers. I’d be careful about using the authority argument with a Protestant though. The problem with that argument is - who has ultimate authority? Why confess to a state court, when I can go to the Supreme Court? From John 1:

“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”

I think there is good, Biblical support for the Catholic position (and I just think it’s a good idea) regarding confession to priests - but I think we can also confess directly to Christ.

 

[Bon_Croix]

He would come up with 2 or three verses without the use of a Bible to dispute my claim. He apparently listens to some radio show or whatever where they use non-Catholic apologetics. And, he is armed.

I love the guy, but I don’t agree with him. Therefore, I have never told him he is wrong for fear of what it would do to the relationship.

The light is simple; it is love. When we stray into apologetics we often lose the light; it’s like politics, so I compromise with others as I am sure most here do as well.

 

[Gorgias]

The references used in both examples do not directly relate to confession.

The question, strictly speaking, isn’t about confession so much as it is about the forgiveness of sins. Jesus didn’t prescribe a particular method by which the apostles could forgive sins – He just said that they could!

It was the Church, then, by the authority given by Jesus, who decides how the Sacrament of Reconciliation is administered!

Me: Have you read in the Gospel about Jesus appearing after the Resurection and breathing on the apostles stating “What sins you forgive are forgiven, what sins you retain are retained”? Doesen’t that state that the apostles had authority to forgive sins?

Him: That’s not what Jesus meant. He meant that their sins could be forgiven if they believe in Jesus.

He pulled a fast one on you, and you kinda let him get away with it.

Jesus made a statement in the active voice: the apostles are the ones who are forgiving and retaining.

Your friend changed the goalposts: instead of talking about forgiving, he talked about being forgiven. He’s cleverly omitting the direct, second person plural address of Jesus to His apostles: “whose sins you forgive are forgiven; whose sins you retain are retained.”

In other words, Jesus didn’t say (as your friend asserted) “if you believe in me, your sins are forgiven”. Rather, in John 20, Jesus told the apostles about an action they would take and what Jesus would do in reaction to those actions.

 

[MT1926]

I love the guy, but I don’t agree with him. Therefore, I have never told him he is wrong for fear of what it would do to the relationship.

If you are worried about this when you quote “stray into apologetics” I would probably get in the habit of asking him questions then.

For instance…

Him: That’s not what Jesus meant. He meant that their sins could be forgiven if they believe in Jesus.

I would ask him ask how is he coming to this interpretation. or then why did Jesus say you? or OK if this verse is being forgiven by believing in Jesus, then why did Jesus bring up retaining sins as well?

I understand he also said this…

Him: Because in Acts of the Apostles Simon the Magician was told by Peter to repent and pray to Jesus.

To me if this verse is his reasoning for his interpretation how is he bringing the two verse together?

What I am seeing here is a perfect example of the who’s so ever sins you retain are retained. Inverse 21 St. Peter made the judgement that Simon’s heart was not right before God. That’s the exact meaning of the verse, the Priest makes the judgement that the person’s heart isn’t right before God. Using his judgement he declared Simon’s sin retained.

Sure the verse says Simon was told to repent and pray to God. That is exactly what I would expect a Priest to do. I would also add that the verse says St. Peter told him to pray for the “intent of your heart”, not the actual sin he just committed. I would argue Simon is being told to pray for a changed heart, for God to take away his sin nature, and not the sin itself.

Also, keep reading the rest of the paragraph. It goes on to give the reason St. Peter retained his sin…"For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness.” It says “FOR I SEE”, St. Peter doesn’t say for God sees here. This is affirming to us that this decision is based on St. Peter’s judgement.

The final verse hits the nail on the head…

Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may happen to me.”

Did Simon just ask the Priest to pray for him? That sure sounds a lot like what we do in confession.

It’s all about context.

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[Bon_Croix]

That helps a lot! You are truly gifted.