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

[guanophore]

The two are not precisely the same, however. As you know, St. Thomas disputed the Immaculate Conception, while still holding that at some point, she ceased to commit actual sin.

I agree, they are not precisely the same. Yes, there have been many disputations of the IC. The whole Eastern Church has the same disputation. Although she is honored by all as “all Holy”, in the East this does not require an IC.

Why is it relevant if they did concur, but irrelevant if they didn't?

Because the portions of the father’s writings that are consistent with the Sacred Tradition are relevant since they testify to the unbroken thread. The places where the writings depart from the One Faith do not demonstrate this tesimony. No one is saying the Fathers are infallible.

(Origen, Basil, and Chrysostom spring to mind… the fact that they believed she sinned would automatically mean they didn’t believe she was conceived without sin.)

How do you figure that? Adam and Eve were created without sin, yet fell into sin. Concupiscence makes sin difficult. to avoid, but not impossible.

It was. That doesn't mean it was apostolic in origin.

I agree, but it is clear evidence that it was not “invented” in 1850.

 

[guanophore]

Are you saying it is imperative for you to preserve what has already been revealed to all the Christians that came before you,even if God shows you His different understanding of the text ?

No, I am saying that it is imperative to preserve what God has revealed to the Church. the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The HS does not lead into division or disunity, thereofre, God would never reveal anything to me (or any other individual) that is not consistent with what He has already revealed to His One Body, the Church.

.

Yes ,your emphasis is on church ,like Christianity is a church,primarily.

There is no division between Jesus and His Holy Bride. When we are baptized into Him, we become membrers of His One Body, the Church. There is no Christianity without His Church, as we are all members one of another. This Modern American Fundamentalism of “just Jesus 'n me, nobody else, just us” is a myth. He founded a Church. We are not in HIm without being in His Church.

I do not see this as an impossibility, as you do.

Everyone who reads the Scritpure can go astray by his own thoughts and perceptions of what he reads. When one reads according to the Teaching of the Apostles, the chances of going astray are greatly reduced. The Church is there to provide guidance for us so that we remain within the flock.

He can reveal himself thru a rock or a jackass,thru and in all things he can be found.But you say if it is church ,it is Catholic.It is all emphasis ,on “church” or individual relationship,and to be "correct " you msut say it is both but to the discerning spirit …

Yes, it is both. When we enter a personal relationship with Christ, we enter into relationship with one another (church). We are members one of another, and every action we take affects all other members of the Body. We need one another, and become the persons God wants us to be by living for one another through His grace.

 

[david_ruiz]

But, david, it is YOUR paradigm that all things regarding God must be found in Scripture. And you are contradicting your own paradigm.

As you know, Catholicism professes that God’s Word is revealed through 2 channels: Scripture and Tradition.

Thus, we don’t have to abide by your “it has to be found in the Bible for me to believe it” tradition.

You, however, are contradicting yours.

No. I was challenged to my paradigm thread 728 ,conceded it was man-made , and not scriptural ,and finally reiterated what was scriptural .I am totally within my paradigm, in thread #737 thank-you.I understand your independence (from my viewpoint) from scripture on this issue (as St Augustine conceded to tradition also-that this is not in scripture ,actually contrary),and reliance on Catholic tradition.

 

[guanophore]

It was said in #688 and #691.It seems to match what you say ,the Church gave us scripture ,therefore anyone saved by scripture ,it is due to Catholic foundation /fathering etc…hence no “saved” outside of Catholic Church

No, David, you are confused. Scripture came from God through the Church.

No one is 'saved by scripture". People can only be saved by the blood of Jesus.

There is only ONE CHURCH, and all who have Christ as their Head are members of HIS ONE BODY, the Church. The reason no one is saved outside the Catholic Church is because there is no salvation by any other name under heaven except Christ, whose Body it is.

 

[guanophore]

What unbiased seminary did you attend ?

I think you misunderstood my statement. I said I did not understand my bias until I attended the seminary, and learned about all the biases.

Did they avoid separatists terms like “Catholic” ,Protestant ,liberal or conservative etc ?

No, not a bit. They were not the most anti-catholic group I ever frequented, but they did not believe that Catholics were saved, and that people needed to “come out of her” inorder to walk with God. Up until the time I left, I was being asked what church I was going to join (assuming I was going to leave Catholicism).

Did this not make the baptists vulnerable ,to hav ean authority higher than there own , where they tell you to test out their teachings and sermons etc ,against scripture ?

I know they believed it did. They did not know thaty everyone reads and understands Scripture according to their own perceptions and education (or lack of it). Therefore, if I “check” the teachings against my perceptions of scripture, I am making myself my own authority. It all boils down to what <> think it means.

Sounds un self-serving . Don’t they know if you come up with a different interpretation you will leave, or start your own church .

You know, one would think they know that. The Baptist Church I was attending at the time ended up with a huge schism of the charismatic gifts,a nd split right down the middle, some people deciding the others were invaded by the devil.

How can this be "greedy " , losing your tithe etc. ? Who do they think they are ,Bereans ? They even said any "bible’ church could help you grow ,not just theirs .Wow !I

The Bereans were “more noble” because they received the Apostolic teaching with eagerness. This is exactly what most people today refuse to do. They believe that it no longer exists - that they must glean the faith from the Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

They do focus on the gospel and individual birth and growth .That they do not know where their bibles came from ,is biased on your part ,for they may not give you full credit that you would like.I am sure they know some of the history.

Some of them do, but most of them do not .I am not being biased, just making an observation. Most Catholics don’t know either.

Perhaps ,but more to stress my point of experience ,that of a deeper walk with scripture as a protestsant ,whereas a Catholic I had a deeper walk with Tradition and a Church.

Yes, I was the same way. I did not know that Scripture is the the product of Sacred Tradition and that the Church taught that ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. I have since been educated in that regard.

Understand ,my experience also. I may be trying to debunct what made you and others ,a "cultural "Catholic.

Perhaps you can explain this. To debunk something is to show that it has no foundation or validity. There is qute a bit of foundation and validity for the phenomenon of cultural or nominal Catholics. The majority of it lies in a whole generation of very poor catechesis. Some of it has to do with a lack of spiritual formation in the home.

We have gone over the definition of "authority " and writings have authority ,in the person of the author ,who is alive and well on planet Earth. I agree , we can become one with Him, as did the apostles.

You are right, we have. The NT is authoritative, because the primary author is God. But the exercise of authority belongs to persons - not to books, however Holy.

 The big word here is "they" decided scripture was purer ?

Absolutely they did. they wanted an authoritative source that was not corrupt, as the clerics of their time were.

God’s words are not pure?

Yes, of course they are! That is why they wanted to replace the corrupt clerics with scripture.

God can not give His divine revelation to a man 1500 years after Peter ? …

Yes, of course He can! But, the Spirit of God always guides toward unity of the Truth. He will NEVER reveal something to an individual that is contrary to what He has already revealed to the Church.

I believe the phrase"absolute power corrupts absolutely " was coined in regards to Papal structure created by “traditional” interpretation.

Yes and no. It was coined with reference to a Catholic Bishop, but it was coined because said bishop was acting in opposition to the tradition interpretation of episkopal structure that was handed down from the Apostles.

1: The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. [R] +]
2: Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, [R] +]
3: no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. [R] +]
4: He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; [R] +]
5: for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church? [R] +]
6: He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil; [R] +]
7: moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. [R] +]
8: Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for gain; [R] +]
9: they must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. [R] +]
10: And let them also be tested first; then if they prove themselves blameless let them serve as deacons.

None of those corrupt bishops were acting in accordance with the Sacred Traditions explicated here.

 

[david_ruiz]

. T

they were not the most anti-catholic group I ever frequented,

 

[david_ruiz]

Perhaps you can explain this. To debunk something is to show that it has no foundation or validity. There is qute a bit of foundation and validity for the phenomenon of cultural or nominal Catholics. The majority of it lies in a whole generation of very poor catechesis. Some of it has to do with a lack of spiritual formation in the home.

 

[PRmerger]

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

So, it seems that this source claims that these stray private speculations were in error?

 

[guanophore]

That you (anyone) is more of a sinner than what God says ,so much so ,that for Him to come inside (as he did Mary),to cohabitate, can not happen unless one is special (immaculate).That He is Holy -true .That we are sinners -true .By grace ,not perfection ,He came into Mary -true.

It is not that God could not do it. He can do whatever He wants. He chose to take His flesh from hers.

No one is saying that Mary was perfected by her own merit. She was saved by grace, through faith, just as we all are. But she was saved in advance, so that she could be prepared for His mission within her. That is why, when the angel greeted her, the title “full of grace” was used. She was already filled with grace before Jesus came to be inside her.

Simple fact: The God of the universe , the creator of heaven and earth , entered a fallen earth. It was in the state of sin (missing the mark-not perfect anymore -Paul says even the earth is waiting for that great day to be restored ). So, God entered a sinful world , and was totally surrounded by a fallen world. It is immaterial that He had to be carried in “perfection”, for as soon as He was born , He entered a sinful world , surrounded by “fallen” elements. He became “dust” , and who knows where that dust had been before . He was still perfect , for dust does not defile , nor could a real, fallen Mary , for defilement comes from within. ( Remember the Pharisees fixation and attempts to be separated from"dust" ) ?

As it turned out, it was very important that He be carried in perfection. This is because, when heresies arose about His nature, it became necessary to emphasize that he was “born of the virgin” having taken His flesh from hers. He cleansed her, so that she would be just like Eve, the mother of all living. Eve was created without sin and chose to sin. Mary was created without sin and chose to obey. That is why her obedience is extolled by our Lord even more than her motherhood, by which she was also blessed.

Same old debate, going back to 2nd ,3rd century, perhaps earlier .Tertullian said Peter was the rock does not mean there then must always be a supreme bishop.This is not a protestant /Catholic debate ,at least not in it’s origins.

Jesus was very clear in his instructions to the Apostles that their leadership should not be like that of worldly leaders. He taught them to be servant leaders, and not to argue over who was the greatest. The Petrine gifts were given to unify the Church, not to have authority lorded over others.

jlhargus;7425353:

It is your history .No one has ever challenged this point before .Was it the Dominicans and the Augustinians that fought over Marion doctrine-not really sure which two . Jerome said, "no one knows of Mary 's end .Assumption talk is “poppey cock”, if I may paraphrase his attitude.

Two comments on this point, David. First, it is grossly off topic. Second, it would probably be better if you had your sources ready before making sweeping generalizations, or inserting elements into history that appear to be unfounded. Can we let this one drop, so we can get back to the topic?

 

[rinnie]

You summed it up; she didn’t have to be born sinless, but it fits your scenario! God told Adam and Eve that hrist would be born of the seed of a woman! Being born of he seed of a man leads to being born into sin. Romans 5:12 says," Sin entered the world through one man," so that everyone who came after had the curse of sin!

You got it half right lb. Yes sin did enter the world through one Man, and sin also was taken away from the world by ONE MAN, JESUS CHRIST. What Adam and Eve had taken from us, Jesus and the Blessed Mother gave us back.

We call it in our faith BAPTISM, forgivness of that curse that was set upon us. Now when we are baptised because of Jesus and his Mother saying YES Do as to as you will Lord, that sin was taken away from the world.

And I disagree, she did have to be born sinless, because she was to carry the Son of God, and God would not have someone with the stain of any sin give birth to our Lord Jesus.

Blessed are YOU among Women and Blessed is the FRUIT of thy womb JESUS.

We do not have to live in sin, and sin in this world. Jesus made it possible for us to live with his commands.

1 John 5 For our Love for God means that we obey his commands. And the commands are not too hard for us, because every child of God is able to defeat the world, and we win victory over the world by means of our faith. Who can defeat the world? Only the person who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

 

[rinnie]

Simple fact: The God of the universe , the creator of heaven and earth , entered a fallen earth. It was in the state of sin (missing the mark-not perfect anymore -Paul says even the earth is waiting for that great day to be restored ). So, God entered a sinful world , and was totally surrounded by a fallen world. It is immaterial that He had to be carried in “perfection”, for as soon as He was born , He entered a sinful world , surrounded by “fallen” elements. He became “dust” , and who knows where that dust had been before . He was still perfect , for dust does not defile , nor could a real, fallen Mary , for defilement comes from within. ( Remember the Pharisees fixation and attempts to be separated from"dust" ) ?

?? Who are you saying became dust? And who is a real fallen Mary??

Hopefully I am misunderstanding all you have written. Jesus did not become dust, He entered heaven True Man and True God. God from God, light from light, True God from True God.

The Blessed Mother was never turned to dust. She was taken straight up to heaven body and soul.

 

[jlhargus]

Original post: JL: Your scenario is sort of like discerning the canon and the trinity, that took at lest three hundred years.

You post, * Really what is your source for this? Can you give me names of these Orders and how many were killed? My bet is NO.

For her to be conceived without sin, wouldn’t her mother, and her mother, etc.,etc.,etc, have to have been born without sin? I mean she was born of the seed of a man!

I knew I would win my bet. It is my history of which you make a FALSE statement. Most people don’t know history, including YOU, to challenge a false statement. Well, WAS it the Dominicans & Augustinians, its your STROY, or was it one of your revelations from God. Yes there was DEBATE but show me were some were KILLED in 1870 when Vatican Council I defined Infallibility, you wont because you can’t, it’s FALSE?

By the way you didn’t answer my post, how do you KNOW when you receive one of YOUR revelations, it’s from God .*

 

[rinnie]

Same old debate, going back to 2nd ,3rd century, perhaps earlier .Tertullian said Peter was the rock does not mean there then must always be a supreme bishop.This is not a protestant /Catholic debate ,at least not in it’s origins.

I totally agree, it is what Jesus said that counts.

Here it is once again.

Who do you say I am? SImon answered You are the Messiah the son of the Living God. Good for you Simon son of John answered Jesus! For this truth did not come to you form any human being, but it was give to YOU directly by MY FATHER.in heaven.

Here it comes david loud and clear. And so I tell YOU PETER, you are a ROCK, and on this ROCK foundation I will build my CHURCH and not even DEATH will ever be able to overcome it. I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven, what YOU prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.

Now with that said what did PETER do? Did he appoint a Supreme Bishop? Yes he did. We call him the Holy Father, the Pope. He still exists today, He is still our leader.

Now what did Jesus say? Did he or did he not tell Peter he had his permission to run the Church or not? Did Peter or did he not appoint a Bishop to take his place? A right that was truly given to him by God may I add.

 

[Augsburg1530]

I agree, they are not precisely the same. Yes, there have been many disputations of the IC. The whole Eastern Church has the same disputation. Although she is honored by all as “all Holy”, in the East this does not require an IC.

Because the portions of the father’s writings that are consistent with the Sacred Tradition are relevant since they testify to the unbroken thread. The places where the writings depart from the One Faith do not demonstrate this tesimony. No one is saying the Fathers are infallible.

True, however, such dissent is important because when a claim is made that a belief is so catholic in nature that it is a dogma, one would expect to see evidence of universal acceptance throughout history. While that is true as regards Theotokos and Semper Virgo, such is clearly not the case with the latter two Marian doctrines.

How do you figure that? Adam and Eve were created without sin, yet fell into sin. Concupiscence makes sin difficult. to avoid, but not impossible.

The circumstances are different, though. It’s unlikely that such fathers would have held she was conceived sinless but later lapsed into sin. They would have then had to formulate how that would be possible (while we can’t explain how Adam and Eve sinned while they were holy, we can at least point to an external temptation as a cause). Certain external sins may be avoidable, for example, I can avoid the sin of murder by avoiding taking someone’s life, but still commit the same sin by being angry with my brother. The point being that actual sin is unavoidable due to original sin. Non passe non peccare.

I agree, but it is clear evidence that it was not “invented” in 1850.

Most evangelicals who would make that claim haven’t studied church history… so that immediately makes the claim ignorant. From a Lutheran standpoint, our issue is not with the doctrine itself per se. I do not feel it is biblically tenable, however, if someone wishes to hold such a pious opinion, I am fine with it. It was when, without doctrinal or historical warrant, it is pressed as a required dogma in order to be catholic that I would object.

 

[Augsburg1530]

So, it seems that this source claims that these stray private speculations were in error?

Well, the website is from a Roman Catholic perspective, so they would be required to say that their private judgments were in error.

 

[guanophore]

True, however, such dissent is important because when a claim is made that a belief is so catholic in nature that it is a dogma, one would expect to see evidence of universal acceptance throughout history. While that is true as regards Theotokos and Semper Virgo, such is clearly not the case with the latter two Marian doctrines.

Yes, indeed one does expect this. But the consensus fidelum does not necessarily comprise a majority of the Church. For example, 80% of the bishops around the world (especially in the East) had fallen into the Arian heresy before it the council dogmatized the hypostatic union. The remnant who have held the One Faith may be very small.

The circumstances are different, though. It’s unlikely that such fathers would have held she was conceived sinless but later lapsed into sin. They would have then had to formulate how that would be possible (while we can’t explain how Adam and Eve sinned while they were holy, we can at least point to an external temptation as a cause). Certain external sins may be avoidable, for example, I can avoid the sin of murder by avoiding taking someone’s life, but still commit the same sin by being angry with my brother. The point being that actual sin is unavoidable due to original sin. Non passe non peccare.

This is a common falsehood that has emanated from Reformation theology. In fact, the opposite is true, as Rinnie has accurately pointed out in the above post. Jesus came to cleanse us from ALL sin, original and personal. We are free from the slavery to sin, and sin IS NOW AVOIDABLE. The idea that we have to sin is a gross heresy. That being the case, your conclusion is erroneous. To accept the IC does not mean anyone must theorize how she later fell into sin, sins it is not necessary to sin.

From a Lutheran standpoint, our issue is not with the doctrine itself per se. I do not feel it is biblically tenable, however, if someone wishes to hold such a pious opinion, I am fine with it. It was when, without doctrinal or historical warrant, it is pressed as a required dogma in order to be catholic that I would object.

Yes. Although I do find it consistent with scripture (tenable) I do not find sufficient evidence in the Scriptures to declare it a dogma.The bulk of that support comes through Sacred Tradition. That is not a problem for Catholic, or even Orthodox, but it is a major block for “bible christians” because they need doctrines to be “proved by scripture”.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, the website is from a Roman Catholic perspective, so they would be required to say that their private judgments were in error.

Fair enough.

So where is your non-Catholic source to back up your statement?

 

[jlhargus]

Sorry I have the wrong quote in Post 651, instead of beliver, it **sould be david ruiz **a different quote. WRONG QUOTE FOLLOWS: Quote: Originally Posted by 1beleevr [For her to be conceived without sin, wouldn’t her mother, and her mother, etc.,etc.,etc, have to have been born without sin? I mean she was born of the seed of a man!] I have removed the worng quote and posted the correct quote in the FOLLOWING.

Original post: JL: Your scenario is sort of like discerning the canon and the trinity, that took at lest three hundred years.

You post, * Really what is your source for this? Can you give me names of these Orders and how many were killed? My bet is NO.

It is your history .No one has ever challenged this point before .Was it the Dominicans and the Augustinians that fought over Marion doctrine-not really sure which two . Jerome said, "no one knows of Mary 's end .Assumption talk is “poppey cock”, if I may paraphrase his attitude.

I knew I would win my bet. It is my history of which you make a FALSE statement. Most people don’t know history, including YOU, to challenge a false statement. Well, WAS it the Dominicans & Augustinians, its your STROY, or was it one of your revelations from God. Yes there was DEBATE but show me were some were KILLED in 1870 when Vatican Council I defined Infallibility, you wont because you can’t, it’s FALSE?

By the way you didn’t answer my post, how do you KNOW when you receive one of YOUR revelations, it’s from God .*

 

[jlhargus]

For her to be conceived without sin, wouldn’t her mother, and her mother, etc.,etc.,etc, have to have been born without sin? I mean she was born of the seed of a man!:

JL: No, althought not CONCEIVED without sin John the Baptist was born without sin.

John the Baptist, was FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, sanctified, in the womb, therefore JOHN was BORN WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIN. Adam lost the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for mankind when he sinned. Original sin is not an actual sin, but a lack of the life of God within. We are not born deserving eternal life, that which is born of flesh is flesh, we are not born with the Holy Spirit in us. That’s why we baptise infants, to restore supernatural life to the soul. [Lk1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST, even FROM HIS MOTHER’S WOMB. Lk1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elizabeth HEARD THE SALUTATION OF MARY, THE BABE LEAPED IN HER WOMB; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:] The same God who filled and sanctified John the Baptist in the womb, sanctified Mary at conception, with God nothing is impossible. The immaculate conception is not a great leap of faith at all.

The soul of the precursor was not preserved immaculate at its union with the body, but was sanctified either shortly after conception from a previous state of sin, or through the presence of Jesus at the Visitation. Again it is remarked that a peculiar privilege was granted to the prophet Jeremiah and to St. John the Baptist. They were sanctified in their mother’s womb, because by their preaching they had a special share in the work of preparing the way for Christ. (Catholic Encyclopedia) newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm Move down to, The conception of John the Baptist. For Jeremiah move down to Proof from reason.