Confession

[Sir_Knight]

Agreed. They are representatives, and can only pronounce what He wills. They have no power in and of themselves. Their physical presence is a symbol, and their service is a tool given to us by the Lord. I don’t mean to degrade the dignity of the priest in saying this. It is in defense of the awesome, forgiving power of God Almighty. I suspect that some folks may be coming close to saying that people save instead of God. God works through all of us in reconciliation. It is only in submission to His will that a priest may pronounce the forgiveness that God has given. But the forgiveness did not originate in the priest, it originated with God through Christ–the priest acts as a conduit, as a spokesperson, of what God has to say. Kind of like the Prophets of the OT.

And the church has no power in and of itself – it’s authority comes from the Son of God. There are numerous places in scripture (many of which have already been referenced earlier in this thread) where Jesus gave this authority to His church – *“whatever YOU hold bound on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever YOU loosen on earth will be loosen in heaven” * … and … “as the Father has sent me, so I send you. whatever sins YOU forgive will be forgiven and whatever sins YOU retain, will be retained” – this authority was given to the Apostles and NOT to all of us. Authority can not be taken. It must be given.

Jesus gave this authority to the Apostles. They, in turn, passed it on to their successors. Unless someone is in that line of succession, one can not rightfully claim that authority. The early Christians knew this. They recognized the special authority of the Apostles and no one DARED to join them unless they were brought in by the Apostles or by someone authorized to act on behalf of the Aposltes.

 

[TOME]

There has been some very good post in this thread which have provided scriptural references of Christ giving authority to the Church to forgive sins. Here, however, I would like to add another perspective.

Belief in the Church’s power to forgive sins is rooted in the belief in the Incarnation itself. Catholics believe that the Second Person of the Trinity became man, that is Jesus was true God and true Man. For we who believe this comes the belief that God Incarnate in the person of Jesus lived died and Rose from the dead. We also believe that Christ’s earthly presence continued after the Ascension in and through the Church. In Acts 9 relating Saul’s (Paul) conversion, Christ Jesus ask Saul, " …why are you persecuting Me"? And of coarse when Saul ask who he is we all know Christ’s reply, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting”. He did not ask Saul “Why are you persecuting My Church”, no He said “Me”!
In several of Paul’s letters he writes that we, the Church, are the Body of Christ.

Catholic belief, therefore, using scripture itself, understands that Christ is uniquely present in all her activities or as we Catholics call them Sacraments. The Eucharist is the central sacrament but focusing on Reconcillation, the passages in the gospels, where Jesus is giving the Church, through the “Twelve”, the authority to forgive sins because ultimately it is He who is Acting through the Church and forgiving sins.

Now if you reject what Christ told Saul (Paul) and if you do not believe what Paul wrote, namely that Christ is present in the Church - The Church is Christ Body visible here and now, then it would be understandable to reject the Church’s sacrament of Reconcilation. On the other hand, if you take Christ’s own words and Paul’s teachings on the Church being the Body of Christ, to be true, then the Sacrament of Reconcilation is rooted in both Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Ladybug42]

Now if you reject what Christ told Saul (Paul) and if you do not believe what Paul wrote, namely that Christ is present in the Church - The Church is Christ Body visible here and now, then it would be understandable to reject the Church’s sacrament of Reconcilation. On the other hand, if you take Christ’s own words and Paul’s teachings on the Church being the Body of Christ, to be true, then the Sacrament of Reconcilation is rooted in both Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

I’m not sure if this was addressed to me, or to the author of this thread. I will answer as if it were addressed to me, and if I err then sorry!

I believe the words of the Lord. What I know without a shadow of a doubt is that the Body of Christ consists of all who belong to Christ–Protestant, Catholic, or any other person who belongs to Him. I see how the Sacrament of Reconciliation evolved, but I still do not see how Christ’s words somehow validate how the Catholic Church has chosen to preserve and organize this act of contrition/repentance. There definitely has been an evolution of how things were first practiced and how they have been tried, refined, and molded in the following centuries. I am not convinced that the current Catholic interpretation holds the same spirit of truth as what the first generation held. Can anyone point me towards some early church father’s within the first 2 centuries that write of confession and the priest’s role? That would really help. I understand that our resources become somewhat stretched as we look farther back into time into the RCC’s primary sources.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Can anyone point me towards some early church father’s within the first 2 centuries that write of confession and the priest’s role?

• Didache, 4:14,14:1 (c. A.D. 90) - “In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life…On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure."
• Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:13 (A.D. 180) - “Moreover, that this Marcus compounds philters and love-potions, in order to insult the persons of some of these women, if not of all, those of them who have returned to the Church of God–a thing which frequently occurs–have acknowledged, confessing, too, that they have been defiled by him, and that they were filled with a burning passion towards him. A sad example of this occurred in the case of a certain Asiatic, one of our deacons, who had received him (Marcus) into his house. His wife, a woman of remarkable beauty, fell a victim both in mind and body to this magician, and, for a long time, travelled about with him. At last, when, with no small difficulty, the brethren had converted her, she spent her whole time in the exercise of public confession, weeping over and lamenting the defilement which she had received from this magician.”
• Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:13 (A.D. 180) - “Such are the words and deeds by which, in our own district of the Rhone, they have deluded many women, who have their consciences seared as with a hot iron. Some of them, indeed, make a public confession of their sins; but others of them are ashamed to do this, and in a tacit kind of way, despairing of [attaining to] the life of God, have, some of them, apostatized altogether; while others hesitate between the two courses, and incur that which is implied in the proverb, ‘neither without nor within;’ possessing this as the fruit from the seed of the children of knowledge.”
• Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 3 (A.D. 215) - “Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest, that he may minister blamelessly by night and day, that he may unceasingly behold and appropriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins…”
• Tertullian, Modesty, 1 (A.D. 220) - “The Pontifex Maximus–that is, the bishop of bishops–issues an edict: ‘I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.’”
• Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248) - “In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance…when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord.”
• Cyprian, To the Clergy, 9 (16):2 (A.D. 250) - “For although in smaller sins sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion: now with their time still unfulfilled, while persecution is still raging, while the peace of the Church itself is not vet restored, they are admitted to communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands Of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.’”
• Cyprian, To the Lapsed, 28-29 (A.D. 251) - “Moreover, how much are they both greater in faith and better in their fear, who, although bound by no crime of sacrifice to idols or of certificate, yet, since they have even thought of such things, with grief and simplicity confess this very thing to God’s priests, and make the conscientious avowal, put off from them the load of their minds, and seek out the salutary medicine even for slight and moderate wounds, knowing that it is written, ‘God is not mocked.’ God cannot be mocked, nor deceived, nor deluded by any deceptive cunning. Yea, he sins the more, who, thinking that God is like man, believes that he evades the penalty of his crime if he has not openly admitted his crime…I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sin, while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord?”

*** Continued in NEXT Post ***

 

[Sir_Knight]

*** Continued from PREVIOUS Post ***

• Basil, Rule Briefly Treated, 288 (A.D. 374) - “It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted.”
• John Chrysostom, The Priesthood, 3:5 (A.D. 387) - “For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. For it has not been said to them, ‘Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.’ They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, ‘Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?’ What authority could be greater than this? ‘The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son?’ But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son.”
• Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, I:7-8 (A.D. 388) - “The Church holds fast its obedience on either side, by both retaining and remitting sin; heresy is on the one side cruel, and on the other disobedient; wishes to bind what it will not loosen, and will not loosen what it has bound, whereby it condemns itself by its own sentence. For the Lord willed that the power of binding and of loosing should be alike, and sanctioned each by a similar condition…Each is allowed to the Church, neither to heresy, for this power has been entrusted to priests alone. Rightly, therefore, does the Church claim it, which has true priests; heresy, which has not the priests of God, cannot claim it. And by not claiming this power heresy pronounces its own sentence, that not possessing priests it cannot claim priestly power. And so in their shameless obstinacy a shamefaced acknowledgment meets our view. Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.’ So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?”
• Augustine, Christian Combat (A.D. 397) - “All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven.”
• Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, 3:16,19 (A.D. 398) - “Just as in the Old Testament the priest makes the leper clean or unclean, so in the New Testament the bishop and presbyter binds or looses not those who are innocent or guilty, but by reason of their office, when they have heard various kinds of sins, they know who is to be bound and who loosed.”
  … All of the above pre-date the formal canonization of the bible and thus, are beliefs that were used to shape the beliefs found in the bible. If one accepts the bible as being the Word of God, then one must accept the belief of that time period which finalized the bible. And the beliefs on confession are found above.

 

[TOME]

Ladybug42,
First, my post wasn’t directed at anyone in particular, however, I was glad to see your response to it because I think it added to the discussion and it has given me a chance to further clarify my thoughts.

Yes, all Baptized Christians make up the Body of Christ. However, as we find in Acts and the Letters/Epistles of the NT the Body of Christ does have a structure in order to fulfill its vocation. From the very beginning of the Church as found in Acts we find this structure (the structure of the Church being modeled on the structure of the authority found in the synagogues) and it the letters of St. Paul (ex. 1 Cor, Ephesians, the letters to Timothy and Titus) we find the structure of the Church evolving or developing.

Also, we have to take into account the historical development of the Church found not only in the scriptures but outside as well. But there is one important point when considering this. The Church, although it had its disagreements, was basiclly unified. So when Paul was writing that the Church is the Body of Christ, he was writing to a Church in particular that was having problems within its own community but was united with the whole Church.

Later, the Church, still in union with itself, developed the Apostolic (Sacred) Tradition through her Eastern Rite (whose liturgies and life were amoung the greek speaking Christians) and Western Rite (those churches whose liturgies and life were amoung the latin speaking churches). Two seperate Rites but still in union with one another united by the Apostolic Tradition. It was during this time that the Church developed a deeper understanding of her Sacramental life (although in the Eastern Rite does not call them Sacraments, but being from the Latin Rite I will use this term). Concerning the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the Church in both the East and West developed her understanding of the need for this Sacrament. If you study the theological developments of both the East and West, you will find that the Church originally saw Baptism as the means for the forgiveness of sins. However, she quickly became aware that even though we have been baptized, we humans are in constant need of renewal. Upon reflecting on the gospels, the Church came to the understanding that Christ was aware of this human need to be in repentance and thus renewal but we are in need of forgiveness as well (did he not tell Peter we must forgive our neighbor 70 x 7 times?) and that Christ, living in the Church and the Church empowered by the Holy Spirit, effected this renewal through the fogiveness of sins. (Other post have already provided a gospel basis for this).

This is reflected it the writings of the Church Fathers (of both the East and West) and the creeds of the Church, especially the Nicaean. In this we proclaim our belief in the forgiveness of sins. Now one could argue that what the Council of Nicaea was talking about was the forgiveness of sins effected by Baptism. However, that position has now real foundation in the history and theologies of both the East and West at that time which lead to the proclamation of this belief. And remember, the Church (East and West) was one. So, criticism of the Roman Catholic practice of the Sacrament of Reconcilation really begs the question of why does the Church of both the Eastern and Western Tradition proclaim the validity and necessity of this Sacrament and why has the Church of both the Western and Eastern Tradition proclaim its right and authority to celebrate this Sacrament? The Sacrament of Reconcilation is not a product of the Roman Catholic Church alone, as some would claim, but it is a sacrament of the Church celebrated in both the Eastern and Western Rites of the Church.

I think “Sir Knight”'s post provides a good example of the Church Fathers of the West and Eastern Tradition thoughts on this Sacrament.

 

[Ladybug42]

It looks like it took a couple of hundred years for that to evolve into a private act to confess to a priest and receive “forgiveness” from him. I had no idea that repentance was a public act at the first. And that people were considered apostate who refused to declare their sins to the assembly. I wonder, since no one does that now, what those church elders would think of it.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Recall that Jesus said that He would send His Holy Spirit to guide His church in all things. Also, recall that Jesus als said that He has so much more to tell the Aposltes but He wasn’t going to do it at that point because they wouldn’t be able to handle it. Thus, it stands to reason that these sacred truthe were revealed to the church by the Spirit as the church evolved and developed.

 

[TOME]

Ladybug42,
The history of the development of the Sacrament of Reconcilation, as it is practiced today, is like the history itself, is very rich. An important about the nature of the history of the Church, just as the ultimate history of mankind - Salvation History - must be understood in having a past, a present but always moving to the future. Also, all this development has been and continues to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

So as for your question about the “Elders” of the Church (a role that we can underwent development in the Apostolic Church [compare the role of the elders of the Church of Jerusalem with that of the Church of Corinth and the churches of the letters of Paul to Titus and Timothy]) is interesting, but like all questons it is really impossible to answer (it reminds me about the questions we hear here in America and what would the founding fathers of American think about what is happening here?). That said, however, I will still venture an answer. I don’t think they would have any trouble accepting how the Sacrament of Reconcilation (or any of the seven Sacrament).

Because one thing the early leaders of the Church were open to and recognized was the workings of the Holy Spirit constantly guiding the Church it her growth and development, at times in ways they, themselves, would not have thought of. I use the very first internal challenge the Church faced. That challenge was whether or not the Church was just for Jews and in order to fulfill her mission given her by Christ - to baptize all nations - meant to make all men jews first or was the mandate given to her by Christ something different.

To answer this question we find in Acts the Council of Jerusalem being held. If you read about that council (and the conversion of Cornelius before it) what guided all decisions an actions was the movement of the Holy Spirit. As Catholic we continue to believe that the Holy Spirit is still present and guiding her decisions and actions and most importantly her growth and development. So in my opinion, I have am sure the Elders would have accepted the Sacrament of Reconcilation as practiced today and may even provide deeper insights to this sacrament.

 

[Ladybug42]

Ladybug42,
The history of the development of the Sacrament of Reconcilation, as it is practiced today, is like the history itself, is very rich. An important about the nature of the history of the Church, just as the ultimate history of mankind - Salvation History - must be understood in having a past, a present but always moving to the future. Also, all this development has been and continues to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

So as for your question about the “Elders” of the Church (a role that we can underwent development in the Apostolic Church [compare the role of the elders of the Church of Jerusalem with that of the Church of Corinth and the churches of the letters of Paul to Titus and Timothy]) is interesting, but like all questons it is really impossible to answer (it reminds me about the questions we hear here in America and what would the founding fathers of American think about what is happening here?). That said, however, I will still venture an answer. I don’t think they would have any trouble accepting how the Sacrament of Reconcilation (or any of the seven Sacrament).

Because one thing the early leaders of the Church were open to and recognized was the workings of the Holy Spirit constantly guiding the Church it her growth and development, at times in ways they, themselves, would not have thought of. I use the very first internal challenge the Church faced. That challenge was whether or not the Church was just for Jews and in order to fulfill her mission given her by Christ - to baptize all nations - meant to make all men jews first or was the mandate given to her by Christ something different.

To answer this question we find in Acts the Council of Jerusalem being held. If you read about that council (and the conversion of Cornelius before it) what guided all decisions an actions was the movement of the Holy Spirit. As Catholic we continue to believe that the Holy Spirit is still present and guiding her decisions and actions and most importantly her growth and development. So in my opinion, I have am sure the Elders would have accepted the Sacrament of Reconcilation as practiced today and may even provide deeper insights to this sacrament.

Thank you for your words, I will think on them.

I understood my priest to have said in RCIA (unless I misunderstood him, which I have done before on such meaty issues) that you didn’t have to go to confession to repent. Even so, that you needed Confession in order to receive the grace that the Sacrament brought, and the assurance that you are clear, have fully repented, and the counsel that comes with it. Have I misunderstood something? The way he said it, sounded like all the glory and forgiveness came from God, and the priest was a servant leader working in accordance with His will. Kind of like God was speaking the words of forgiveness through them. Is that right?

 

[TOME]

Ladybug42,
I cannot comment on what your priest said or if you you misinterpeted what he said, so I will just add my own comments.

We don’t go to confession to repent, rather, we go to confession because we do repent. The metanoia we have been called to ( Mark 1:14) is an ongoing process, and if you believe in Purgatory as I do, this process doesn’t end immediately with our death. I think making a good examine of conscience makes it clear that this process of metanoia is not a one time human act but a life long process, namely we still sin and we are in need of forgiveness and to renew our relationship with God, fellow man and the Church (remember, as humans we do not live in a vacuum so what we do, good or bad, effects all aspects our our life). This is why today, the stress the Church places on this Sacrament is the emphasis on reconcilation, thus we call the sacrament the Sacrament of Reconcilation. However, from what you related, your priest made an important point I hope you consider. That is, with this sacrament, as with all sacraments, we receive a special grace which helps us in our daily life to live the life we have been called to live.

As Catholics, we believe that Christ is present in a unique and physical way in and through the Church. In the sacraments, Christ is acting through the Church and through the minister of that sacrament. So in effect, when we celebrate Reconcilation, it is Christ acting through the priest and forgiving our sins and reconciling us to the Father, our fellow man and the Church. We are not going to some man and telling him our sins, it is Christ to whom we are confessing and receiving forgiveness.