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

[david_ruiz]

Sadly, from a sola scriptura standpoint, both can claim to be right.

Shall I say you totally misrepresent SS ? When your Church, Magisterium , Popes , Bishops, Priests, lay people are totally right on, it is because of the Holy Spirit and His ministry .They do not stand alone . Sola Scriptura does not stand alone either , for it is understood that all truth is by the Holy Spirit, even when gotten thru Holy Scripture. SS can not operate in truth without His unction . Your Church can not either. Just cause you read the bible and trust it ,doesn’t mean you operate alone into truth. Just because you are baptized Catholic ,does not mean you will apprehend truth without the same Holy Spirit the Protestant is is to be allied with also.

 

[PRmerger]

I understand your magistereium says it can not be wrong . Well, I was told you can not be your own “proof”, authority , that you need outside accountability to a "personal divine revelation. What you apply to protestants then should also be applied to your Magisterium. In itself it, can not say it is right . I know you have reasons why you think it is right , but to an outsider , say a Bhuddist , he may question when you say you are right because you are the only right church. Very circular ,self-justifying statement…

No, it’s not circular. It’s spiral.

“We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). **What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.” **source

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes, of course. It was hyperbole to be sure.

But, it certainly provides a reality that could have existed if there were no pope, and each man could decide for himself “guided by the Holy Spirit” what date to celebrate Easter.

So, at maximum, it could be only 365 different choices for when to celebrate Easter.

Thank-you .I appreciate your calm spirit.You cite mathmatical truth in the 365. I will just reiterate there were only 2 dates , both possibly with apostolic founding, 150 years into the church. There were no new dates on the horizon , at least that could claim apostolic oversight.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank-you .I appreciate your calm spirit.You cite mathmatical truth in the 365. I will just reiterate there were only 2 dates , both possibly with apostolic founding, 150 years into the church. There were no new dates on the horizon , at least that could claim apostolic oversight.

But it could have been, if there was no pope, chaos and confusion. It could have been any number of days–365 to be exact–that could have been considered the day to celebrate Easter.

Thank goodness we have the pope to make such decisions!

 

[david_ruiz]

So which church has the unction? Here is how to find out.

My Church says that man has no authority to destroy a marriage. Every other church claims that man does. Who is right?

Certainly this is a method to discern which church has the “unction”.That is ,taking divorce,or any matter, and judging a whole church by it’s light /dogma on that matter .Great question .What about this method : take all things and discern them with His unction ,one at a time ,on their own merits.You know I disagree with some Catholic dogma (as not being unctioned by H.S.),but see His light on many other Catholic things. The apostles had the same problem ,of vaildating "other "disciples. Remember that story in the Gospels ?

 

[joe370]

I started a thread with the hopes of correctly representing SS, but there doesn’t seem to be one definition of SS. So, the HS guides you to believe one thing about confession and me to believe the exact opposite?

I want to know the truth from the spirit of truth (the HS). How can I ascertain the truth about this teaching?

Shall I say you totally misrepresent SS ? When your Church, Magisterium , Popes , Bishops, Priests, lay people are totally right on, it is because of the Holy Spirit and His ministry .They do not stand alone . Sola Scriptura does not stand alone either , for it is understood that all truth is by the Holy Spirit, even when gotten thru Holy Scripture. SS can not operate in truth without His unction . Your Church can not either. Just cause you read the bible and trust it ,doesn’t mean you operate alone into truth. Just because you are baptized Catholic ,does not mean you will apprehend truth without the same Holy Spirit the Protestant is is to be allied with also.

 

[david_ruiz]

No, it’s not the fault of sola scriptura; after all, scripture is the word of God; those who are responsible for the invention of the bible alone tradition, are to blame. They put the word of God, via individual interpretation, ahead of the authority of the church leadership, established by Jesus.

For example, it was the authority of the Catholic Church, as a council, that gave us the creeds and defined things such as the Trinity. If sola scriptura via individual interpretation, would have been the practice of the day back then, many more people today might have embraced Arianism; agreed?

From your point of view .you are right.For the authority of your church leadership is in perfect harmony with scripture.You know this because your church says so, today and yesteryear. .Furthermore , your church says Jesus says so also. Finally ,you believe it all, for your church says you must, and you are genuinely persuaded. Nothing I say can penetrate such solid experience .

 

[Cat_Herder]

From your point of view .you are right.For the authority of your church leadership is in perfect harmony with scripture.You know this because your church says so, today and yesteryear. .Furthermore , your church says Jesus says so also. Finally ,you believe it all, for your church says you must, and you are genuinely persuaded. Nothing I say can penetrate such solid experience .

The fact that many people convert to Catholicism not because the Pope says so, but rather because they are convinced of the truth of the Faith, is highly damaging to your statement.

 

[david_ruiz]

I guess it comes down to one thing: which church leadership was given the authority (unction from the Holy Ghost) - to interpret scripture? Who was entrusted, by Jesus, to interpret the following passage, via the guidance of the holy spirit, regarding the forgiveness of sins: John 20:23? I know it wasn’t me brother. Sure, I can interpret scripture as I see fit, just as anyone can, but in the end, who or what was charged with the commission to ensure that scripture wasn’t/isn’t wrested out of context? We both agree, I think, that is was the Catholic Church from the 1st century to the 5th century - yes?

I read somewhere that bishops /elders were not for interpreting scripture ,but to hold fast to what they were taught,at first directly from the apostles and then from their disciples etc. So I am not sure the church is to interpret scripture per say. It can certainly teach , but scripture says every neighbor will teach his neighbor (we are all priests type of thing ,the Holy Spirit indwelling us, a new dispensation , inherent to the New Testament).

 

[Protestant101]

The fact that many people convert to Catholicism not because the Pope says so, but rather because they are convinced of the truth of the Faith, is highly damaging to your statement.

The fact is, though, is that many who “convert” are not. There are many reasons for switching churches.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;7433396:

First of all how can you be a devout Catholic and then leave the Catholic Church? Makes no sense to me.

Devout means devoted to ,as to its faith and practices ,and yes loyalty.This is the opposite of a Catholic in name only ,not really practicing or believing ,and maybe ignorant of teaching. Both types have left the church ,and found spiritual life in “other” churches .I would think you personally know people who fit these 2 scenarios (there are more). Would you say a nun or priest is a devout Catholic ? Most would say yeah , they have given there lives to Christ and His church -they are at least devout. What I was saying is that while in that Catholic station ,they somehow come to believe different interpretation of things , usually some parts of scripture, and ponder them , while still serving Christ and His church. They begin to interpret differently what it means to serve Christ, and what it means to be loyal to his church , even what is really his Church etc. At some point they leave the church .I have been told they become a “fallen” catholic.

Secondly how can you blame the Church for the sins of others.

How can I blame your church when I do not view it as a sin that they listen to God also ,as they were taught to as Catholics ? I am just trying to say you can not blame Protetsantism ,or Sola Scriptura ,or a million other things when Catholics themselves get different interpretations, as Catholics.You can blame those things if a Catholic falls away from Catholicism (no longer devout or practicing) for whatever reason ,then years later they listen to “Luther “. Yes, blame” Luther”,SS etc. then. Don’t blame them when a nun simply reads her Catholic bible, or in meditation, comes to a different “light”–reading or listening to nothing of protestantism.

Next this one really blows my mind. How could the Pope cause division in other Churchs? And these other Church’s that have Apostolic Succession where did it come from? There was more then One Apostolic succession? Please show me this information.

Let me try again .Division here is of a different sense .Perhaps a better word is discord or friction ,where ther was none before .In fact there was division before with no discord or friction(kind of live and let live attitude ,tolerant ,because the two dates may both have been apostolic.The eastern date(more jewish) is attested to by Polycarp ,disciple of John.Maybe the western date (sunday is attributed to Paul -gentiles ) For 150 years both dates were celebrated in respective regions, by respective peoples and -peacefully.The Pope (Victor 190) decreed that in at least Rome, all had to celebrate it on Sunday, even eastern church immigrants living in Rome .To say the least the easterners did not like this change from their apostolic heritage on this issue. All I am saying is that the pope could have left it alone,as had previous popes ,and as several bishops suggested ,to no avail (most bishops preferred Sunday). Anyways several have posted a site you can go to for a rather honest depiction on this history. See post 795, kindly provided by PRmerger.

Tell me when do you say the Pope CAME ALONG? What year would you say he appeared.

Iraneus I believe he had the first list of bishops of Rome ,and listed Peter and Paul as the first.

 

[joe370]

I am really attempting to understand things from your perspective Dave.

From your point of view .you are right.For the authority of your church leadership is in perfect harmony with scripture.You know this because your church says so, today and yesteryear. .Furthermore , your church says Jesus says so also. Finally ,you believe it all, for your church says you must, and you are genuinely persuaded. Nothing I say can penetrate such solid experience .

So, from the point of view of each respective church, in the world today, they too are right, in my opinion, which means no one is wrong, and yet truth remains elusive regarding certain doctrinal beliefs, such as the sacrament of confession. From that perspective, (the holy spirit guides each respective church) - it does not sound like Jesus left the world with a universal way for all Christians, regardless of denomination, to know the truth regarding certain teachings, such as confession or the Eucharist. Is that a believable assessment?

Do you agree with the following:

As a former non-Catholic, I eventually learned the canon of Scripture was determined by the CC councils, which it included the Deuterocanonicals.

The CC via council, defined the 2 Natures of Christ: dogmatized in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. Further controversies over whether Christ had one of two wills ensued, and this went on for a few centuries more.

The CC via council, defined original sin, which is not found in scripture: this was finalized in dogma so late that it wasn’t even part of the Nicene Creed; the ECF’s wrote much more about purgatory than original sin.

Most non-Catholics embrace the preceding 3 teachings. Why trust that the CC, via council got it right about them and disbelieve that the CC got it right about things such as purgatory and the sacrament of confession?

I am not trying to be slippery; I am just looking for a viable answer. These are simply questions that bothered me long ago.

 

[Protestant101]

So, from the point of view of each respective church, in the world today, they too are right, in my opinion, which means no one is wrong, and yet truth remains elusive regarding certain doctrinal beliefs, such as the sacrament of confession.

The “sin” in question has to somehow get to Jesus. That’s the bottom line here. While this may once in a while happen through other individuals; and for various reasons; it is not a must have requirement of Scripture. No human being can forgive our sins; Christ and Him crucified is the only means of salvation.

 

[joe370]

I read somewhere that bishops /elders were not for interpreting scripture ,but to hold fast to what they were taught,at first directly from the apostles and then from their disciples etc. So I am not sure the church is to interpret scripture per say. It can certainly teach , but scripture says every neighbor will teach his neighbor (we are all priests type of thing ,the Holy Spirit indwelling us, a new dispensation , inherent to the New Testament).

That is true; each generation simply passes on to the next generation, the doctrinal truths that were passed on to them, and this started with the apostles, and the holy spirit, through this lineage, safeguards said truths. The HS gets all the credit. The key seems to be: find the church born on Pentecost - maybe?

As far as interpreting scripture, who was entrusted with the authority to do it? Is it every neighbor, as he/she is guided by the HS? That has not proven to be successful.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The fact is, though, is that many who “convert” are not. There are many reasons for switching churches.

I am referring to Protestant → Catholic conversion, not Protestant → Protestant church shopping, which is both very common and uneventful as you imply.

No Protestant becomes Catholic lightly. Such a conversion often results in social stigmatization and family strife and necessitates the acceptance of doctrines that go against decades of conditioning.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The “sin” in question has to somehow get to Jesus. That’s the bottom line here. While this may once in a while happen through other individuals; and for various reasons; it is not a must have requirement of Scripture. No human being can forgive our sins; Christ and Him crucified is the only means of salvation.

Christ has a Body and we are members of it. It’s true that only the head (specifically the mouth) can speak the words “you are forgiven,” but the mouth uses not only the head’s muscles, but also the muscles of the chest, neck and abdomen in order to speak. These parts, indeed all but the head, are specifically said by Paul to be human.

 

[Protestant101]

As far as interpreting scripture, who was entrusted with the authority to do it? Is it every neighbor, as he/she is guided by the HS? That has not proven to be successful.

The Church, if you mean The Roman Catholic Church, cannot prove that only they have the “authority” to interpret scripture. Everyone has the privilege, not the authority, to interpret scripture.

 

[Protestant101]

Christ has a Body and we are members of it. It’s true that only the head (specifically the mouth) can speak the words “you are forgiven,” but the mouth uses not only the head’s muscles, but also the muscles of the chest, neck and abdomen in order to speak. These parts, indeed all but the head, are specifically said by Paul to be human.

This is my point. Anyone can “speak” the words, but that does not follow that the speaking carries any authority with it; or any power with it. Only Jesus has the power and authority to forgive sins, because of His Sacrifice.

 

[joe370]

The “sin” in question has to somehow get to Jesus. That’s the bottom line here. While this may once in a while happen through other individuals; and for various reasons; it is not a must have requirement of Scripture. No human being can forgive our sins; Christ and Him crucified is the only means of salvation.

The CC agrees with you. Jesus is the only one forgiving sins, and he does it through His ministry of reconciliation, here on earth. Ask any priest/bishop if he has any power, on his own, to forgive someone of their sins, and they will say - No, just as no one has the authority, by virtue of their own power, to baptize another; that is achieved though God alone, once the minister speaks those words.

Jesus said to mere fallible, sinful humans: whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

I am really trying to see things from your perspective, but the clear meaning of that passage does not agree with you. The apostles performed miracles too, but it was God Who performed said miracles though His earthly instruments; same thing with that passage.

 

[Protestant101]

The CC agrees with you. Jesus is the only one forgiving sins, and he does it through His ministry of reconciliation, here on earth. Ask any priest/bishop if he has any power, on his own, to forgive someone of their sins, and they will say - No, just as no one has the authority, by virtue of their own power, to baptize another; that is achieved though God alone, once the minister speaks those words.

Jesus said to mere fallible, sinful humans: whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

I am really trying to see things from your perspective, but the clear meaning of that passage does not agree with you. The apostles performed miracles too, but it was God Who performed said miracles though His earthly instruments; same thing with that passage.

Ha! Ha! It’s only the same thing if you are a Catholic Joe! But thats OK. I’m out of time on the net for tonight - but I will be back!