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

  • Thread starter Thread starter guanophore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
The Scriptures and Tradition were in their inception at this point.
Click to expand...
david_ruiz said:
False and false. Very anti-semetic, just like some statements made about Mary being mentioned in Genesis as “the woman” cause Eve and Jews were not at emnity with Satan. It is like all good things begin with Catholicism.Shades of the bad old past.But I stray ,false and false.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I misspoke when I stated the Scriptures began with the confession of St. Peter. It is true that the OT Scriptures already existed. I should have stated that the NT Tradition began here.
 
david_ruiz said:
All true Christains have scripture ,tradition ,heirarchy ,leadership,sacraments -universal stuff.
Click to expand...
How do you know this? By what authority do you declare who is a true Christian and who is not? Because there are many Protestants who would disagree with you, variously, on many of those points: Tradition, sacraments, hierarchy. So how do you know that these things are essential for true Christianity?
david_ruiz said:
just as it does not say verbatim "God is a triune God ", or that "His blood is transubstantiated for us " etc.
Click to expand...
So then, do you believe these things? If so, why? There are those who read the same Scriptures and come to the opposite conclusions. How do you know that you are right?

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
 
Pitcharin,
Your testimony of the two priests in the confessionals is amazing!
 
PRmerger said:
You are correct. I misspoke when I stated the Scriptures began with the confession of St. Peter. It is true that the OT Scriptures already existed. I should have stated that the NT Tradition began here.
Click to expand...
Thank-you .Would you agree you had divine revelation then in the old testament,in fact what happened to Peter ,and the insinuation is that it would continue into the new ?
 
david_ruiz said:
Again, Catholics and some others may believe it is non-biblical .but much believe it to be a biblically correct interpretation.
Click to expand...
If it’s a “biblically correct” interpretation, please cite the Bible verse that says “Scripture interprets itself”.

Hint: you will not find it in a single page of Scripture.

Thus, it’s NOT a biblically correct interpretation, but rather a man-made tradition that many have implicitly accepted.
 
david_ruiz said:
Thank-you .Would you agree you had divine revelation then in the old testament,in fact what happened to Peter ,and the insinuation is that it would continue into the new ?
Click to expand...
Yes, I would agree that divine revelation began with the Jews in the OT. And it continue with Peter.
 
Ne_OrangeKnight said:
How do you know this? By what authority do you declare who is a true Christian and who is not? Because there are many Protestants who would disagree with you, variously, on many of those points: Tradition, sacraments, hierarchy. So how do you know that these things are essential for true Christianity?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
PRmerger said:
If it’s a “biblically correct” interpretation, please cite the Bible verse that says “Scripture interprets itself”.

Hint: you will not find it in a single page of Scripture.

Thus, it’s NOT a biblically correct interpretation, but rather a man-made tradition that many have implicitly accepted.
Click to expand...
You are a persistent hound at my heels .Alleluia.I will return the same answer as before. You will not find a single scripture that says “God is a trinity” or "Christ will transubstantiate Himself. Just as there are scriptures suggesting in God’s own terms he is triune He also tells how scripture is to be interpreted, and by whom. Perhaps , I may share them some time in the future , but I am sure you have heard them before.I will just say in general terms, the best interpreter of Washington’s farewell address is Washington himself, would you not agree ? But he is dead, and can not “explain” a single word he said to us anymore.
 
david_ruiz said:
You are a persistent hound at my heels .Alleluia.I will return the same answer as before. You will not find a single scripture that says “God is a trinity” or "Christ will transubstantiate Himself. Just as there are scriptures suggesting in God’s own terms he is triune He also tells how scripture is to be interpreted, and by whom. Perhaps , I may share them some time in the future , but I am sure you have heard them before.I will just say in general terms, the best interpreter of Washington’s farewell address is Washington himself, would you not agree ? But he is dead, and can not “explain” a single word he said to us anymore.
Click to expand...
You agree, then, that saying “Scripture interprets itself” is a tradition NOT found in Scripture?
 
david_ruiz said:
Ne_OrangeKnight;7357382:
Howdy Orange Knight.Just trying to separate out some cults and segments of Christian faiths that may not have our basic fundamentals at heart .It was a general statement that Catholics and Protestants share these things in common in a GENERAL sense .Of course there are disagreements in practice and levels etc Also, I was not talking in context of “essentials”.
Click to expand...
That’s really not what your words said, though. You said that “[A]ll true Christians” have these things, which would seem to imply that such things are, in fact, “essential” to true Christianity. If you just chose your words poorly, please rephrase. If you meant what you said, please tell me how you know what makes a “true” Christian. I know Protestants who do not believe in sacraments. I also know of some who do not believe that the church should have a hierarchy. And you still haven’t accounted for the Mormons, JWs, etc. who look at the same Scriptures that we do and try to claim that God is not a Trinity.

I’m also not entirely sure what “our” fundamentals are.
Yes to triune God, no to transubstantiation.Yes, there are different interpretations. How did Abel know what was an acceptable offering ? How did Peter know whom the Messiah was ? How are we to know that plus what Jesus meant by eating manna and eating Him ? In the end how do you know which interpretation ,which teacher , which church, which history , which tradition has it right ?(the same things Peter had to work with and through-but what was the key ?
Click to expand...
Okay, you didn’t actually answer the question. I’m asking how you know which interpretation is correct. What makes you right and others wrong? I acknowledge that there are differing interpretations, but that doesn’t mean that they are all correct.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
Click to expand...
 
david_ruiz said:
Only if the writer of scripture is as dead as Washington.
Click to expand...
Then what verse tells you that Scripture interprets itself?

Clearly, this is something someone else told you–maybe a pastor, or maybe another Christian–and you believed it. But why? Where do you get this belief from? It’s not in a single page of Scripture.

You’ve just believed it, and I can’t figure out why!

Scripture interprets itself? :hmmm:
 
PRmerger said:
Then what verse tells you that Scripture interprets itself?

Clearly, this is something someone else told you–maybe a pastor, or maybe another Christian–and you believed it. But why? Where do you get this belief from? It’s not in a single page of Scripture.

You’ve just believed it, and I can’t figure out why!

Scripture interprets itself? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are getting tripped up by the words as stated .I have had that happen to me where i did not understand your question for awhile,and when i finally did it was simple.But why are you in the paradigm that something, someone, some pastor had to tell me this .Perhaps ,but I can not remember .Perhaps it is simply understood on this side of the fence that you do not p(name removed by moderator)oint when you first believed it.Again ,the idea is in scripture,in so many words ,and it is the only correct view,according to scripture.For sure my pastor nor your bishop nor my church nor your church " interprets " scripture. They can teach , but interpret is something else.
 
The Catholic faith has 5 ministerial sacraments…requiring the priest…

The words and actions of Christ Himself supersede that of the apostles in Acts…but you are not understanding the context of their actions either. That is the beginning church. So how did the apostles found churches? And what were these churches like? St. Paul addresses the various problems with each one.

So do you think the ecclesiastics then of those times would sit back and complain and do nothing? Why is it so many times that modern fundamentalists allow themselves to develop order in their gatherings but the successors to the apostles to do not?

Do you know that within a 100 years after the death of St. John the Evangelist, even less than that, Christians were basically worshipping the same throughout the ancient world? There are ancient documents attesting to the perpetual sacrifice as there were churches in those days of persecution that people would receive the Eucharist daily.

The Church just didn’t pop out of the sky. People need structure, rhythm, stability…the Word of God is always in need of theologians to help us understand it in the times we live in.

You can’t debate the origins of Christianity without being educated in it. A protestant minister who is now Catholic said what Protestants think of the early Christian history is not what it really was.

I myself need to study more. I just ordered a basic on the Concise History of the Catholic Church. From there you have to branch out and the easiest for me, would be to study each period of the papacy because it has not been broken – ever.

Catholicism is based not on ‘I am saved’…my own creation, my own judgment of myself whether I am saved or not just because I say I believe in Christ.

Catholics believe in the life of Christ through our entire lives all dependent on grace. It is through baptism that we are united with Christ. The sacraments are concrete–no arguing debating doubting – signs of the sanctifying grace of Christ…Jesus said His kingdom is among us now…and we enter Him into sharing Divine Life with Him in the sacraments.

The sacrament of confession’s practices and norms were developed in time. Fundamentalism doesn’t have to because the Church already did it for them. They just take their Bible books and leave. Big divorce. Not good.

Just as it takes an act of faith to believe in Christ and surrender one’s life to Him, it takes and act of faith to get beyond all the frailities of humanity to believe in Christ’s Catholic Church.
 
KathleenGee said:
The Catholic faith has 5 ministerial sacraments…requiring the priest…

The words and actions of Christ Himself supersede that of the apostles in Acts…but you are not understanding the context of their actions either. That is the beginning church. So how did the apostles found churches? And what were these churches like? St. Paul addresses the various problems with each one.

So do you think the ecclesiastics then of those times would sit back and complain and do nothing? not?Why is it so many times that modern fundamentalists allow themselves to develop order in their gatherings but the successors to the apostles to do

Do you know that within a 100 years after the death of St. John the Evangelist, even less than that, Christians were basically worshipping the same throughout the ancient world? There are ancient documents attesting to the perpetual sacrifice as there were churches in those days of persecution that people would receive the Eucharist daily.

The Church just didn’t pop out of the sky. People need structure, rhythm, stability…the Word of God is always in need of theologians to help us understand it in the times we live in.

You can’t debate the origins of Christianity without being educated in it. A protestant minister who is now Catholic said what Protestants think of the early Christian history is not what it really was.

I myself need to study more. I just ordered a basic on the Concise History of the Catholic Church. From there you have to branch out and the easiest for me, would be to study each period of the papacy because it has not been broken – ever.

Catholicism is based not on ‘I am saved’…my own creation, my own judgment of myself whether I am saved or not just because I say I believe in Christ.

Catholics believe in the life of Christ through our entire lives all dependent on grace. It is through baptism that we are united with Christ. The sacraments are concrete–no arguing debating doubting – signs of the sanctifying grace of Christ…Jesus said His kingdom is among us now…and we enter Him into sharing Divine Life with Him in the sacraments.

The sacrament of confession’s practices and norms were developed in time. Fundamentalism doesn’t have to because the Church already did it for them. They just take their Bible books and leave. Big divorce. Not good.

Just as it takes an act of faith to believe in Christ and surrender one’s life to Him, it takes and act of faith to get beyond all the frailities of humanity to believe in Christ’s Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
May I suggest, “Lives of the Popes” by Michael J. Walsh.(Roman Catholic.former Jesuit priest) I liked it .Not easy reading from my point of view.Protestants do believe in church hierarchy,as do Orthodox.You must allow room for people who believe in bishops ,deacons ,but not popes. If one “colors” scripture ,one can easily color history,.Perhaps we are slow to see some of their traditions (early church), but Catholics also are slow to admit their lack of some of them.Thank you for admitting “confession” took time to develop.Maybe Catholics should be more generous to Protestants seeing early Christains did not have “confession” as you practice it either. The earliest writings ,I mean earliest ,do not talk of transubstantiation when mentioning Eucharist. The fact that much of Catholicism “evolved” ,makes it difficult to convince me and others that many practices are “apostolic”. …Are we not educated in church History ? Then why is it that many of the reformers were actually well educated Catholics. Why is it that more than half the Protestants I know were educated as Catholics ? Do you think we can not read the Didache ,or St.Augustines’ "Confessions "also ? No one is denying that your traditions exists and has for a long time.Christianity was Catholicism for a long time… Because it is , because it was , does not make it apostolically approved .As you state ,wrong traditions were being practiced that had to be corrected during the apostles life.You must also be careful of where uniformity came from .Was it from the spirit or church guidance , or was it by force ? I understand your objections to protestantism-real problems ,disunity etc .It is difficult for a Catholic to believe that what they receive from Christ thru a visible church and sacraments ,can still all be had "invisibly (for lack of a better word) ,thru the Spirit and yet still have a church.It may seem we are structureless or leaderless or non-traditionalists,or ignorant of history ,but we are not. What you can not escape is that somehow many have abundant life in Christ another way. Christianity is still “The Way” , and “Catholic”, (as in “Universal” ) . Alleluia ! The Lord lead us to still waters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top