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

[PRmerger]

Sorry it is a Catholic term used to describe the differences in souls sailing on the Mother ship Catolica and the dingy’s of Protestante,something with the idea that the dingies are not in fullness of faith or something ,but still we(non-Catholics) have something ,just not as much as Catholics.The ship stuff is not in the catechism ,the other stuff is.

You are very mistaken, david. “fullness of His way” is not a Catholic term.

I just did a google search. The term is found in 2 places: your post and a Presbyterian Church.

google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,28156&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=%22fullness+of+his+way%22&cp=21&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22fullness+of+his+way%22&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=83f87efc6f926f13

 

[Cat_Herder]

I am thinking more deeply .cause i think you went beyond my intentions .I am not thinking great apostasy .Just simple fact that to us down here there is a visible church of born again believers (you say baptized -ok) yet for some we do not know fully who really are His ,to the end.

But what we DO know is this.

[BIBLEDRB]Mt 24:35[/BIBLEDRB]

Not one thing Christ taught would pass away until He comes again in glory. So you need to focus not on the individual Christians (we are all sinners) but on the authentic teachings of the Church—meaning the oldest one. It is not a coincidence that the Catholic Church has been here from day one.

Apostasy may have a part , but I believe it is more not having a real experience in Christ , not really being born again .

The “born again experience” theology is broken. I’ll prove it to you.

Say there is a fetus in the womb. The mother has an abortion. The baby has never had a “born again experience”—does that mean the baby is going to hell?

No. Now before you say “the baby wasn’t baptized either,” remember that salvation is by grace alone. It is not by faith alone, and it’s not by baptism alone either. Grace is a free gift from God; He is free to save whoever He wants, but it’s obviously better to do as He said and to baptize, as doing so expressly invokes the covenant. That is why baptism is the primary means of grace.

Say you have a six year old child. This child does not understand Sunday School and certainly has never had a “born again experience.” Is this child going to hell? No. What if the child has never been baptized? Still no; God is not going to hold this child responsible for doing something the child did not know had to be done.

Now say you have a mentally retarded sixty year old woman. Just like the child, she does not understand Sunday School and certainly has never had a “born again experience.” Is this woman going to hell? No. What if the woman has never been baptized? Again, no.

Finally, say there is a native animist deep in the Brazilian rain forest. This man has never seen a Bible, never has attended Sunday School, has not been baptized and, of course, has never had a “born again experience.” He has no clue who Jesus is. He slips and falls off a cliff.

Is he going to hell? NO. Why not? For the same reason that Jesus will not condemn the fetus, the child, or the grandma. He is a JUST Judge and He desires for ALL MEN to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). He will accomplish what He sets out to do even if the normal means of doing so aren’t there.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

“As the Father has sent Me, so I send you.”

The Father sent His Son with authority. Christ did the same exact thing with the Apostles that His Father did with Him; that is, He gave them authority to forgive sins. Notice that this is AFTER the Resurrection also.

To those who deny confession to a priest, does God know the sins you have committed?

Our Sacrament is for the confession, penance and reconciliation. Confession (commanded of us in Scriptures), Penance (the outwardness of repentance commanded by Christ) and Reconciliation (to reconcile relationship with God; I call this part “mini-homilies”)… Everything is biblical here.

And to add to the quarrel about “church”… If we are one body because we are “born again”, then what is the point of Truth? Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, etc… All these teach different things. There is only one Truth, that is Christ, the Eternal Logos. We all love Truth, but does that mean we all have the Truth especially when those “Truths” are contradictory? Truth cannot contradict Truth.

There cannot be many different Truths. Nor can there be one Truth among different denominations teaching contradictory beliefs. Tolerance is good to a point. That point is the Truth. (Note: Non-tolerance of other religious belief does not mean hostility towards the -isms or the -ists. I came across a revolting website whose purposes were clearly iconoclastic especially towards Catholicism. Needless to say, it was a Christian website. This is why I throw this in here)

The Church is the only entity that cares about unity, not just in community, but in Truth. It all makes sense in the Church.

 

[david_ruiz]

Looks like we’ve got ourselves another ex-Catholic who lapsed because (s)he didn’t know what the Church actually taught. Lumen Gentium:

1. Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.(10*) For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.(73) (11*)

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Where is the part where all baptized in Christ are the church.This only speaks of “organization " and elements. I do not see Catholic attitude toward Protestants as” gifts and forces toward unity" .Why does everybody then mention the 30000 divisions-are they not elements towards catholic unity ? which is it ? I have had it explained that yes ,we are still “under” you ,that is owing to Catholicism. It also does not say equal elements of sanctification and truth.Again ,you are the mother ship.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Where is the part where all baptized in Christ

Paragraph 7. I think you should read it before continuing down this tangent.

Again ,you are the mother ship.

The Catholic Church is the original Church—this is indisputable historic fact—and thus she is the only Church. All Christians are Catholic, regardless of what they call themselves and whether that unity is complete or partial.

Seriously, read it.

 

[david_ruiz]

Catholics are not in the business of “telling” who’s saved and who’s not. God is not a statistician who provides us with the demographics of heaven (or, indeed, of hell).

He simply says, “Strive to enter.”

(Now, to be sure, it’s been revealed that there are certain souls in heaven, called saints, but the specific demographics of heaven are not for us to know.)

Just stating some of Paul’s and Jesus’s words

 

[david_ruiz]

Paragraph 7. I think you should read it before continuing down this tangent.

The Catholic Church is the original Church—this is indisputable historic fact—and thus she is the only Church. All Christians are Catholic, regardless of what they call themselves and whether that unity is complete or partial.

Seriously, read it.

Did read it .There still is a part of your catechism that speaks of fullness as protetstants not having it,and catholics having it.

 

[PRmerger]

Just stating some of Paul’s and Jesus’s words

Not equal in the fullness of His way?

Please cite the verses that Paul or Jesus say this.

 

[PRmerger]

Did read it .There still is a part of your catechism that speaks of fullness as protetstants not having it,and catholics having it.

Yes, Catholicism has the fullness of Truth, the fullness of God’s revelation.

But it makes no comment about your inequality, david. That is a figment of your imagination.

You are creating a Catholicism that doesn’t exist.

And the Catholicism in your mind that you left years ago does not exist either.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Did read it .There still is a part of your catechism that speaks of fullness as protetstants not having it,and catholics having it.

How can your church have the fullness of truth if it did not exist at the time of Jesus Christ?

 

[david_ruiz]

The Catholic Church is the original Church—this is indisputable historic factMany good historians would say that is Catholic dogma,and tread carefully so as not to offend either side but it is definitely disputable.—

 

[Cat_Herder]

Many good historians would say that is Catholic dogma,and tread carefully so as not to offend either side but it is definitely disputable.—

No other church besides was around until the Orthodox started schisming.

If by “good historians” you mean the History Channel and Dan Brown, well…

 

[david_ruiz]

How can your church have the fullness of truth if it did not exist at the time of Jesus Christ?

Be careful for PR says "fullness is not a word used in this dialogue.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Be careful for PR says "fullness is not a word used in this dialogue.

Catechism of the Catholic Church #819
“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

You need to decide whether you believe a bunch of fiction writers, television shows, and tract sellers, or the Truth.

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes, Catholicism has the fullness of Truth, the fullness of God’s revelation.

But it makes no comment about your inequality, david. That is a figment of your imagination.

You are creating a Catholicism that doesn’t exist.

And the Catholicism in your mind that you left years ago does not exist either.

Apparently you are not aware of your own Catechism.Not a figment,unless by a Catholic who posted it(Part about fulness)

 

[Cat_Herder]

Apparently you are not aware of your own Catechism.Not a figment,unless by a Catholic who posted it(Part about fulness)

Your church is not the one Jesus Christ founded, but an offshoot thereof. Follow the leadership of your church back and you will eventually reach someone who left the Catholic Church.

Your church building and design were copied from the Catholic Church.

Even your Bible came from the Catholic Church.

That is the truth and there is no getting around it.

 

[placido]

We are of one accord,in spirit ,but you want it every where else to ,as to when and how to genuflect ,and this and that etc.

That is either a deliberate diversion from your side, or a question of not knowing the difference between practice and doctrine … we are talking about doctrine not practices.

What is that to you if a brother gets fully immersed or only sprinkled in baptism?

No qualms, as long as a Trinitarian formula was used.

I told you my “denomination” is quite settled with its doctrine.

Yes, but we not talking about your denomination … we are talking about your allegation that all the disagreeing and quarreling denominations are ONE universal church.

You look at all the others and say see how they bicker.

Yes, they do bicker on doctrine and can, therefore, not be ONE church.

Well if I do the same ,you are also in with the others who bicker -you and the orthodox and those other protestants.

Therefore, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox and the Protestants ARE NOT ONE church as you allege.

It is a terrible burden to be told you are the only true church from the beginning and the rest of us are just renegade offshoots.

That is the truth, uncomfortable as it may be.

But you are partly correct ,many are offshoots from Catholicism, but not all, and from my point of view you are also offshoots but not from the beginning.

That is easy to say, but impossible to demonstrate.

I know you’d like me to say you were, but at least I say you carried a big chunk of church history and some of it very positively…You are right to look at fruits unity being one of them .We are at least unified in that we are “protestant”.

No, please don’t talk about doctrinal unity in Protestantism … it simply does not exist.

Furthermore, there other fruits besides unity ,and the Catholic Church has been wanting also.

Not on doctrine.

placido

 

[placido]

Many good historians would say that is Catholic dogma,and tread carefully so as not to offend either side but it is definitely disputable.

There will always be some people disputing the truth. Christian truth is itself disputed by some, but that does not mean Christianity is not true.

placido

 

[placido]

No ,but is He above all else ?Yes ,He is up there ,hence He needs someone down here to be His vicar ? He is everywhere, even where two or three are gathered , there He is in the midst of them, down here on planet earth.

Hi David, do you believe God is everywhere? Why, then, did He need Moses to lead His people here on planet earth? Has God changed?

 

[guanophore]

Yes ,you did not say authority of scripture as the culprit rather full reliance on it or Sola Scriptura.

This is an important distinction, for sure. Since humans interpret everything that comes through the senses (including all that we read), what occurs in SS is that the person reading it becomes his own authority. Most SS are influenced by human traditions (SS being one) and don’t know it. Pretty much all of them earnestly believe and trust that their understanding of Scripture comes from the HS who bears witness to them in their hearts.
In the end, Scripture is not “alone”, and full reliance is not upon the Word, but one’s perception of the Word.

.True ,but he continues today thru the ministry of the Holy Spirit.He did not set things up ,like winding a clock ,to then step aside and watch.It is as he were still here,as with the apostles ,but even more so.

With you, I also reject the Deist perspective about the wound up clock approach. I also agree that He is with His Church until the end of the age. However, the Apostles taught that the fullness of the Father’s revelation of HImself came through Jesus, and the Church has always held that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. This is how we understand the Deposit of Faith - that was “once for all” committed to the Church. This is why we cannot accept the innovative doctrines of the Reformation, like SS, since such acceptance would require that we abandon the Apostolic teaching that public revelation is closed.

What remains is how we are to apply the “once for all” deposit of faith to the modern age, a task that Jesus entrusted to the Magesterium (teaching authority) of the Church. These are the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Successor of Peter, to whom responsibility was given to feed and and care for the flock.

when was he (Luther) fallen ? The 93 things ,most of em minor / He still felt very catholic .

It is difficult to say when Luther fell away from Catholic faith. Clearly it was before the Theses were posted.

By what authority to you deem them to be “minor” disagreements?

(Luther) still felt very catholic .

What does it mean to “feel” Catholic? Are those majority of American Catholics decorating the pews (however occasionally) who “feel” Catholic but reject the teachings of the Church Catholic because of their feelings?

If I pray the sinners prayer, and I “feel” that I have given my heart to Jesus am I therefore am saved forever?

What does it mean to Was it when he was given no scriptural evidence ,for minor dogmas /practices ,other than Papal decrees and synods-perhaps .

I am having problems following your thought here. It seems that you are saying that Luther could not find some of the Church teachings in His bible, so he therefore decided they were not from God.

Do you really think I do as I please ? That I follow myself ?

Most people do this, including many baptized Catholics. Sincer evangelicals believe they are following scripture, though they are really following their understanding of scripture, which is why there are so many divisions.

are all of your churches teachings God’s teachings ?

Those that are found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the Word of God, and comprise the “once for all” deposit of faith. They are from God, and therefore, cannot be changed. Disciplines can change.

God has always allowed competing “truths” to be along side the One Truth, to test every individual.

No, God has always said there is One Truth (His) and that weeds dwell among the wheat, and wolves among the flock. It is not a choice between a truth or another truth, but truth and error.