Do Catholic priests have the authority to forgive sins on earth?

[PRmerger]

.Why did you not clarify that sooner ?

Sooner? Geez! You posted yesterday at 9:12 pm, and you don’t think 1 day is soon enough to respond?

At any rate, before I discuss the difference between transubstantiation and the Eucharist, please answer these questions I posed earlier:

david, I am interested in your answer to the above question.

What does your pastor teach regarding this (can you claim someone is comdemned to hell)?

And that prompts some follow-up questions:
-if your pastor does not claim infallibility (and I’m guessing he does not), then how do you know that what he’s teaching is correct?
-what do you do if you disagree with his teaching?

(Incidentally, if he’s fallible, then, by definition, he’s going to be wrong at some point in his interpretation of the Bible. Have you discussed with your wife what you will do at this point? Will you leave and go find another church? If so, will this new pastor also be in error at some point? (Yes!) What will you do then?)

 

[david_ruiz]

Right. And by the quotes you made earlier I see that you see the parallel. It lies not with eating flesh and mixing blood of husband and wife but in the joining of One Flesh.

The two shall become ONE.

I

n the Eucharist and in the marital embrace–two become ONE.

 

[david_ruiz]

Lets get this straight - Transubstantiation is the term for the change that is undergone during consecration of the bread and wine to the Holy Body and Precious Blood. So no, the two are not the same - one is a process and one is a decription of two Holy Sacramental Objects.

Understand .Thanks .But what is “Eucharist” earliest definition ?

 

[joandarc2008]

Understand .Thanks .But what is “Eucharist” earliest definition ?

Eucharist in Greek means celebration it is the word used to describe the Sacrament of the Most Holy Body and Precious Blood described in the Bread of Life discourse in John 6.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Understand .Thanks .But what is “Eucharist” earliest definition ?

Todah.

 

[joandarc2008]

Todah.

You pulled out all the stops!!!

 

[po18guy]

Again Jesus did not always make the pronouncement. When he did , it was because he saw a “condition” had been met .

Really? Hmmmm…

Do you mean to tell me that without the pronouncement (hokis-pokis) sins are retained, even though the condition has been met by the sinner ? Was the pronouncement necessary for forgiveness, or was it necessary for the sinner to hear and be comforted ? What is more important ,a repentant heart or the the spoken formula of absolution ? You make it sound like God will cast down a repentant and broken heart , if the sinner does not have someones make the pronouncement… If I assume then we all assume .It is by faith in His action(the Cross) and Word that we both attain forgiveness. You kill His written Word and the power thereof(by the placement of a mediator ,for the Mediator).Remember ,the first gentiles saved with Peter simply heard (equivalent to also reading today) the gospel and the Holy Spirit forgave their sins (justified them) and filled them with Himself (sanctified )-before any baptism of water etc. The pronouncement is in His Word. Why do you Judaize,make a work of it. What ,do you not have personal experiential faith with Christ and His forgiveness but thru a priest ? If you want a priestly pronouncement fine ,but only as a pronouncement as to what has already occurred ,a testimony of His grace ,but please do not say the pronouncement is effectual ,that is what makes the forgiveness happen.

Short answer: no.

 

[PRmerger]

Man and woman were made to be one, naturally, as in parts are parts .

What does this mean man and woman are one “naturally” and “parts are parts”?

So how is Christ and man made to be one, naturally ?
Indeed we are one with Christ, but eating Him is NOT a natural method to achieve this.

This is a good point. You and Christ are naturally united (maybe) when you read His Word.

But you and Christ can not be supernaturally united because you have no means of achieving One Flesh with Him.

Adam and Eve and God were one in the beginning ,naturally .

If you could explain this “naturally” reference. And a Scripture verse about this, with the words “Adam and Eve” and “naturally” would be helpful.

I did a search for where the word “naturally” appeared in the King James Bible and found this: O references in the Old Testament.

 

[david_ruiz]

First please do not get terminology confused - you made solemn promises - you have one vow to make in your lifetime - an example would be either marriage or religious order - an oath is just an other word for minor promise - your Confirmation promises were not merely oaths.

Since you do not remember your baptismal promises as an infant you may not think you are bound; however you also renewed them at Confirmation - again solemn promises -

1)You made a solemn promise through reception of the Sacrament to be a witness and disciple of the Church as well as to be a member of the Catholic community (ecclesistia) [priest, prophet, king]

1. You made a solemn promise to defend the Church [warrior of Christ]
2. in the renewal of the baptismal promises you would have made loyalty to Christ and the Church, all this is usually covered in the shortened profession faith known as the Apostle’s Creed - this includes such things as continuing a Sacramental life in the Church; i.e. - marrying within the Church by the Church laws, attending mass, following precepts

Basically when you made that profession faith - you made that solemn promise before a Bishop or representative - of free will and at an age of reason.

Thank-you .For sure i remember Confirmation as being made a soldier for Christ .I do not feel bound by vows i made in my “old state” of spirituality .I was not born again .It was binding on my conscience however , and definitely was used to convict me of sin ,not being one with God and His church (even Catholic) later on ,in my carnal condition. "Hold on to what you have , lest you lose even that " is exactly what happened to me later on. So ,if I failed form on religious my religious promises, it was when I was totally carnal ,church less. It was not when I became a protestant. “The wayward will enter in more easily than the religiously righteous” also happened to me. But you are right ,if I promised to be a Catholic Christian ,I broke it .My promise to be a soldier for Christ ,and His church, He fulfilled it me graciously.

 

[david_ruiz]

I have read not a single verse that says, “Jesus physically died for me and I die and resurrect in Him by faith.”

 

[david_ruiz]

d
-if your pastor does not claim infallibility (and I’m guessing he does not), then how do you know that what he’s teaching is correct?

Augustine said He (God) teaches us .Us becomes the body, the church ,a pillar of that teaching . Jerome was the teacher of his day . So did Augustine contradict ,or did God and scripture and Jerome and the church all bear witness together, in Augustine’s spirit?. We are in totally different paradigms of what is “Church”.The spirit bears witness ,in us. We have an unction from the …Holy One.

(

 

[joandarc2008]

And John the Baptist made it very clear that he was here to baptize with water but the one would come who would baptize with the Holy Spirit - so I guess baptism alone is not enough - Mk 1:2-8

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=PRmerger;7293236]

Firstly, I did not say your sins were not forgiven.

 

[david_ruiz]

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5:17-18[/BIBLEDRB]

WE must be careful ,for a non-believer will think scripture contradicts itself .For I quote Paul saying the old testament is done away with and you quote saying it is “fulfilled” and every bit of it shall be required.

 

[Cat_Herder]

WE must be careful ,for a non-believer will think scripture contradicts itself .For I quote Paul saying the old testament is done away with and you quote saying it is “fulfilled” and every bit of it shall be required.

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 8:10-11[/BIBLEDRB]

Obviously, the law cannot be written on men’s hearts if it has passed away (which it hasn’t.)

 

[david_ruiz]

REALITY CHECK: Your premise applies equally to the Sinner’s Prayer and all other “born again” experiences.

Agreed .We do not look at rituals as being “affective” ,that is something I do making it so .You also place many conditions on rituals being 'affective ; that is it must represent sincerity of heart ,something inward .Many people have been baptized into the church and it did nothing .Many people have said the sinners PRAYER AND IT MEANT NOTHING .HOWEVER ,MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED ,AND SAID THE SINNERS PRAYER ,AND IT REPRESENTED EVERYTHING INWARD AND UPWARD ETC. .As far as other born again experiences ,i am not sure what you mean ,unless you mean other rituals to make it happen .Then the same rationale would apply.

 

[Jenny4Him]

I think you have missed the context of the instruction. Anyhow, even if you were going to confess your sins to another, why would you NOT choose one to whom Jesus gave the power to remit them?

It appears your Catholic formation was very poor, then.

The remission of sins that occurs in the confessional is, indeed, based upon accepting or rejecing Christ’s atonement for sin on the cross.

We are all called to preach the gospel, and if that was all there was to retaining and forgiving sins, then there would never have been a need for this further instructions on forgiving and retaining, would there?

Jesus instruction to the Apostles on retaining and remitting sins was separate from those of preaching the gospel.

I think you lost me here, David. How is a fault different than a sin?

I agree, though, Christ will forgive you if you repent, whether I do, or not. Confession is the means by which his cleansing blood is appropriated.

Then you have the added difficulty of explaining why the Apostles misunderstood Jesus, and taught their disciples to misunderstand, and why God was so weak and disinterested that He could not correct the Church for 1500 years.

No, the 1500 is not a “generalization”. The Reformers 500 years ago felt the need to jettison the Catholic priesthood, so they formulated other theories about what the scriptures could mean, like that forgiving and remitting sins has to do with preaching the gospel.

If God is not lax, then why did He not send “correction” to the Orthodox, who have also received the same teaching we have from the Apostles?

1. Prove the claim you made that the OT foreshadowed the Catholic church priesthood; you made the claim; now prove it.
2. a] “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?” Mark 2:7

b] The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” Luke 5:21

Prove that anyone can forgive a single sin except for God; you made the claim. Here is the rebuttal to that claim from the very God breathed Word of God.

 

[PRmerger]

Rom 6:3, " if you are baptized into Christ you are baptized unto his death. We are buried with him by baptism into death, and as He was raised …even so we should walk in newness of life" .

Why did you leave out the next verse?

For** if **we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection.

O.K. but who was "in the flesh ",walked away from Jesus ? Was it not those who thought they had to literally eat Jesus ? But literally ,could not have Jesus been saying He was more than flesh, that it was not just His flesh that died on the cross ,it was His spirit also ,God Himself. Just a thought.

So, the flesh profits nothing? Then the verses you quoted mean nothing! Jesus’ flesh profited us nothing.

Clearly, Jesus could not have meant that HIS FLESH profits us nothing.

Be careful, david, when you cite that verse else you deny the Incarnation and the Atoning death of Christ.

Carne=flesh

InCARNation.

Was it not flesh that atoned for our sins?

 

[david_ruiz]

The problem here is that it doesn’t address the plain meaning of the words spoken to the Apostles in the upper room. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven; whose sins you retain are retained. In other words, whatever sins the Apostles forgive are forgiven. Conversely, whatever sins the Apostles retain (i.e. hold bound, do not forgive, etc.) are not forgiven. There is nothing in there about preaching the Gospel, and nothing about proclaiming what God had already done.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

Agreed .Your scripture ,by itself , can lead to your interpretation .Clearly there are other scriptures however.Also ,in Greek writing there is an inference as to to lesser and greater …Heaven being greater and earth being less. It is heaven that is expanding and regaining earth.It may seem like the deputy is making it happen on earth ,but the inference is that he is in agreement with heaven to begin with, heaven being the greater. It is a subtle difference ,but what a difference ,It is a far cry from the upper room and the “confessional”. Again ,I do not see forgiveness being Given by Peter outside the proclamation of the gospel .The upper room does not say HOW this will happen . Indeed , Peter will go out and make proclamations , and indeed sins will be forgiven and retained. There are many scriptures as to How , but none say confess to Peter or his successive “deputies”. There is one scripture , to confess faults , one to another. …The upper room context is without the shedding of blood , there is no remission of sins. For remission of sins , Peter must pronounce the new covenant and it’s Testator ,Christ .This is exactly what Peter did on Pentecost . Peter proclaimed sin , judgement and righteousness, the gospel ,the blood of Christ the way “out”- “repent and be baptized ,for the remission of sins.” and 3000 souls were added that day .

 

[PRmerger]

Augustine said He (God) teaches us .Us becomes the body, the church ,a pillar of that teaching . Jerome was the teacher of his day . So did Augustine contradict ,or did God and scripture and Jerome and the church all bear witness together, in Augustine’s spirit?. We are in totally different paradigms of what is “Church”.The spirit bears witness ,in us. We have an unction from the …Holy One.

Nonsequitors, all.

If you know that your pastor is fallible, then by definition, he’s going to be wrong in his preaching.

Going

to

be

wrong.

Fallible.

That means that each time he preaches you have to decide if this is an error he’s professing or if this is truly what God has revealed.

And, knowing that he’s fallible, you know that he’s been wrong in the past, and he’s going to be wrong in the future.

Why do you stay in a church where you know that error is being taught as truth?