Did early christians confess their sins to the Appostles?

[leanuss]

This was a question by one of my brother posted in Facebook. I responded with some of the following

Acts: 19:18 Many of those who had become believers came forward and openly acknowledged their former practices

Jn 20:23 "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

For the above answers, he gave me an explanation that it was an open confession not private. I responded in early times there was no private property… Do we practice that now?
He left that answer and responded with some and said
“a true christian must give importance to word of God more than church tradition.”

Such is the discussion going on… My argument was based on the following points

1. Love your neighbour really means respecting their feelings and beliefs and making them comfortable with them. Never hurt them by pointing out what they do is wrong (always).
2. THe growth of Christianity is declining and the unity of the Christians are more important now-a-days. We should live a Christian life for other people to follow us.

I would be pleased to get some defense points…

 

[JRKH]

This was a question by one of my brother posted in Facebook. I responded with some of the following

Acts: 19:18 Many of those who had become believers came forward and openly acknowledged their former practices

Jn 20:23 "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

For the above answers, he gave me an explanation that it was an open confession not private. I responded in early times there was no private property… Do we practice that now?

A great answer.
I might have also said that nowhere in scripture does it forbid private confession - and nowhere in Church teaching does it forbid public confession…
So one can assume that both forms were and are permissible.

He left that answer and responded with some and said
“a true christian must give importance to word of God more than church tradition.”

I love when someone says this - because you can simply turn to Scripture and show him where Scripture itself points to the authority of the Church both in teaching and in practice.

For example - Scripture says that we should take difficult disagreements to the Church and we should listen to her for she has authority to bind and loose “whatever” (Mt 18:15-18). We see this instruction in action in Acts 15 and the council of Jerusalem. We see Scripture call the Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). Scripture says that:
…the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church. Eph 3:10.

So what shall we make of the importance of the Church and her “traditions” given what “word of God” tells us about her role and her importance?

Such is the discussion going on… My argument was based on the following points

1. Love your neighbour really means respecting their feelings and beliefs and making them comfortable with them. Never hurt them by pointing out what they do is wrong (always).

1. THe growth of Christianity is declining and the unity of the Christians are more important now-a-days. We should live a Christian life for other people to follow us.

I would be pleased to get some defense points…

Yes - Jesus said that the world will know we are his disciples by our Love.
That said - - getting at truth often involves mush debate and making others uncomfortable. So I’m not sure how much I agree with point 1.

As to point 2…Unity among Christians has always been important. I don’t know that it is more important today.
Again turning to Scripture, one can find many exhortations to unity - not a wishy-washy form of unity, but a deep ad profound and visible unity.

• to be one as Jesus and the Father are one
• to be of one mind
• to avoid dissension
• to listen to the Church
• to praise with one voice
• to agree in all things
  etc…

Again - Scripture points much more to an organization like the Catholic Church than to something like the “protestant” churches…

Just some thoughts

Peace
James

 

[losh14]

This sounds like a more wide-ranging discussion. It might help to address specific points.

• Your friend cannot say definitively that the Apostles only heard private or public confessions.
• Your friend cannot say that private confession is invalid any more than he can say that public confession is invalid.

Scripture (in James 5:14 to 16) shows us that those who were called “elders” in the early Church would lay their hands upon the sick and anoint them, and also that the sick should confess their sins (the wording is “confess your sins to one another”), and in context with the calling of elders for healing, this suggests that the elders were the primary ones to whom confession of sins was made.

What are we to think of this? Perhaps confession was made to elders and fellow congregants, ie to those whom we’d call “priests” and “laity” today. Today many parishes have spiritual directors who can help a penitent work through the sins they struggle with and prepare them for making a good confession, even though they do not have the authority to absolve, which is an authority the Church leaves to the priests alone.

There is certainly room in Scripture for a public confession of sin - see Mt. 18:15-17 for how grievances should be brought up - but I see no reason to think that private confession is forbidden or rendered powerless according to Scripture. As you note from Jn 20:23 - the Apostles received a profound power to loose and to bind. Forgiveness cannot be given unless the sin is heard, this implies confession is necessary to the one who has the power to forgive the sin. The confession therefore at least has to be to one person, we don’t rule out it could be to everyone (including to those who have no authority to forgive sin), but in the Catholic Church we practice private confession as a valid form.

 

[MarcoPolo]

This was a question by one of my brother posted in Facebook. I responded with some of the following

Acts: 19:18 Many of those who had become believers came forward and openly acknowledged their former practices

I think Acts 19 implicitly suggests that there was some value in going to the Apostles rather than confessing where they were. See this old thread.

 

[dmar198]

This was a question by one of my brother posted in Facebook. I responded with some of the following

Acts: 19:18 Many of those who had become believers came forward and openly acknowledged their former practices

Jn 20:23 "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

For the above answers, he gave me an explanation that it was an open confession not private. I responded in early times there was no private property… Do we practice that now?
He left that answer and responded with some and said
“a true christian must give importance to word of God more than church tradition.”

Such is the discussion going on… My argument was based on the following points

1. Love your neighbour really means respecting their feelings and beliefs and making them comfortable with them. Never hurt them by pointing out what they do is wrong (always).
2. THe growth of Christianity is declining and the unity of the Christians are more important now-a-days. We should live a Christian life for other people to follow us.

I would be pleased to get some defense points…

I would point out that public confession is not a sin and is still practiced in some circumstances. But if public confession can get your sins forgiven, then it automatically follows that private confession can too. Because what if you needed to confess your sins and you went to the priest and no one else was around? Would you have to call up frirends? No, of course not – if the priest really has the power to forgive sin, as John 20:23 says, then he can forgive you whether other people are around or not.

 

[po18guy]

Paul had a ministry of reconciliation 2 Corinthians 5:18-20. He forgave sins, which he would not divulge the nature of - indicating the seal of the confessional.

2 Corinthians 2:10 And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

Confession is properly known as the Sacrament of reconciliation - Paul’s very words. He forgave sins in the person of Christ, exactly as priests do.

When our Lord forgave sins, he told the sinner to their face that their sins were forgiven. See Matthew 9:2, Mark 2:5, Luke 5:20 and Luke 7:48. Jesus Himself intended for us to hear those very words of reconciliation. He specifically gave the Apostles power over sin (John 20:23).

Keep in mind that some sins are also held bound, if there is lack of repentance. See Acts 5:1-11, regarding Ananias and Saphira. They were unrepentant even under questioning and paid on the spot with their lives.

Ask your friend if he or she has ever heard those words of reconciliation. Ask also how they know that the sins were actually forgiven and not held bound. It seems that they simply assume their sins are gone. Sounds dangerous.

See also this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=871666

 

[chefmomster2]

“a true christian must give importance to word of God more than church tradition.”

Exactly where does the Word of God tell us that we should have private confession? Or public confession for that matter? If the apostle was there and people were receiving absolution, who else forgave them? What do we really know about the administration of the sacrament from the scriptures?

---

2 Corinthians 5:18 ESV / All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;

Matthew 18:15-17 ESV / “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

John 20: 21-23 NAB / [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

---

I would add this. The New Testament contains the theological basis for each of our seven sacraments and we hold the scriptural revelations of these signs in highest esteem. The Church retains the vital essence of these sacraments. However, Jesus never gave the Church an outline, blueprint, or directive on the precise celebration of each sacrament.

Jesus gave us the gift and the sacred essence of each sacrament. He left it to his Apostles with the help of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to design the best, most meaningful, most spiritual framework within which to celebrate. Over time, the Church has developed these sacraments into beautiful and meaningful celebrations.

Yes, these change! The outward rites change. THE ESSENCE REMAINS THE SAME.

While DOGMA does not change, it does develop over time as our church leaders continue to receive inspiration from the Spirit. This inspiration can lead to outward changes. The world changes, customs change and language changes. The Church needs to stay abreast of this to ensure that the essence of the sacrament remains true to Scripture and Church Tradition.

Private confession in a little box has gone away in part due to the church scandal. The priests must be visible for the protection, both physical and legal, of the minister and the penitent. While we do not receive public absolution, we do now participate in public reconciliation services.

There will be many other changes in our lifetimes, I would expect. The new does not invalidate the old. The old is not compromised with the new. The Spirit faithfully guards these most holy gifts.