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

[Alexander_Roman]

Maybe I do and maybe I don’t. You really don’t know.
Does not the Bible say that God is the only one who can forgive sin?

Hello Reverend!

I certainly do confess my sins directly to God and Christ. But I also avail myself of Confession when I have sinned grievously. I rely on the advice of my spiritual Father who counsels me on how to avoid such sins in future.

He does not forgive me my sins. He pronounced the forgiveness of Christ over me.

Christ is God become Man. Christ mediates salvation to us, and does the Bible, the Church, the Church’s ministers etc.

God is the only one Who forgives sin. But He does it through His Incarnate Son and His Body which is the Church.

Alex

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Interesting that you bring family and spouse into this discussion, david…as it pertains to your comment below:

This is absolutely true. And only Christians who have the Eucharist can have the sublime and profound intimacy of the One Flesh Union.

Just as a husband and wife together, in their marital embrace, strengthen their relationship with their family.

But, alas, Christians who do not enjoy the Eucharist have no means of this intimacy.

They have “prayer or reading His Word”, which is fantastic.But conversation with your spouse and reading his/her love letters to you does not replace the intimacy of the One Flesh Union.

The way I heard it phrased was that talking on the phone or reading letters cannot compare to being in the same bed, holding them in your arms.

I agree with this post completely, even if the thread has veered off topic

 

[david_ruiz]

To condense: The “bible alone” movement has shattered Christ’s Body into disagreeing factions. We are supposed to be one. Conscience? It must be well-formed, or it is not a conscience at all. Suppose you are a sociopath - how do you follow your conscience if you don’t have one? Jerome - had his own ideas, but he also had obedience. And that is why he is a Saint. Luther lacked obedience, and he is not a Saint. My background? Nope. It is the ego-driven bible alone groups that shatter Christ’s Body into thousands of disagreeing factions (denominations). What did Saint Paul have to say about factions?

Get back to you ,but thanks for the good hearty laugh we had at break time reading your “Romeaphobia counseling availability 24/7”. Very Good.

 

[david_ruiz]

Interesting that you bring family and spouse into this discussion, david…as it pertains to your comment below:

This is absolutely true. And only Christians who have the Eucharist can have the sublime and profound intimacy of the One Flesh Union.

Just as a husband and wife together, in their marital embrace, strengthen their relationship with their family.

But, alas, Christians who do not enjoy the Eucharist have no means of this intimacy.

They have “prayer or reading His Word”, which is fantastic.But conversation with your spouse and reading his/her love letters to you does not replace the intimacy of the One Flesh Union.

Part of me understood what you say right away , but part of me finds it creepy .Perhaps the "child’ in me says it is creepy .The catholic/protestant debater in me was more accepting or understanding . It could be creepy cause it is if one is very satisfied with connecting with Christ and then you say you must drink His blood ,a bit like the marriage bed being satisfying , but then telling the lovers to cut themselves and mingle their blood to really make it “deep”. Many thoughts , but how about this one :we will be more satisfied in heaven spiritually, yet without spousal intimacy (sex), that is body is not necessary for that intimacy. A couples intimacy is a foreshadow of spiritual bliss with Christ. It is not related to eating Christ and drinking His blood. If you read the gospels on drinking His blood Jesus himself says these things are "spiritual’ , and not fleshly. I am sure people find the Eucharist fulfilling , deep and right . However, there are many religious things to do , in most religions that feel very right and very good ,hence their deep devotion and following. I have experienced BOTH sides of Eucharistic devotion ,and found not let down in consubstantiation. In fact , I sense a freedom almost a cheating of my old catholic holdings, that it be so simple ,yet so profound as a secret yet open .Secret cause it is Him and I, but open because it is for all in it’s simplicity and truth. How many rules do you need for just when and how it happens or by whom, and in what ,and what to do it it falls or spills ,and how to clean ,if the blood is dry or still wet and what to do with remains and any cloth He touched ? Sorry ,but it reminds me of Harry Potter and incantations and witches brews or hokis pokis spells as found written in a witch’s book. Or ,all the rules and regulations of the Pharisees , purely man made yet with good intention. I wish I could be more charitable ,but that is my child -like reaction.I am sure you see my view as cold, shallow even blah,but be assured we do exactly what you do ,and go as deep as is our portion of faith in remembering what He did for all of us ,on the cross,and why he did it. This journey of depth and intimacy and relevancy in “remembrance” knows no bounds of denomination, Protestant or Catholic, or of transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation. In that we have both traveled together I believe .

 

[joandarc2008]

I have experienced BOTH sides of Eucharistic devotion ,and found not let down in consubstantiation. In fact , I sense a freedom almost a cheating of my old catholic holdings, that it be so simple ,yet so profound as a secret yet open

Considering that you admit that you had to break several Biblical based rules to take a consubstantiated Host including your own Baptismal promises (and possibly) Confirmation promises I wonder if that sense of freedom does not almost equate with the sense of freedom one feels when one “gets away with a sinful act.” And I am not accusing of knowingly doing anything purposely - I am just pointing out that feelings aren’t facts.

 

[david_ruiz]

To condense: The “bible alone” movement has shattered Christ’s Body into disagreeing factions. We are supposed to be one. Conscience? It must be well-formed, or it is not a conscience at all. Suppose you are a sociopath - how do you follow your conscience if you don’t have one? Jerome - had his own ideas, but he also had obedience. And that is why he is a Saint. Luther lacked obedience, and he is not a Saint. My background? Nope. It is the ego-driven bible alone groups that shatter Christ’s Body into thousands of disagreeing factions (denominations). What did Saint Paul have to say about factions?

To a protestant we are One. To a catholic only catholics are one .To Jehovah Witness ,they are the only true ones .To Mormons they have it .To Seventh Day Adventists ,they have it too .I could say my denomination is “one” ,all around the world ,we have the same beliefs that is one, holy and following apostolic teachings. As other Catholics have pointed out , truth is what divides, as Jesus says .He promises division , over Himself .You say Luther divides cause he was disobedient (sinful) ,and Luther says Rome was sinful that forced division , So to a Buddhist , we both are in the same boat , of finger pointing . I can not defend goofy protestant ideas that cause division , just like I can not defend goofy Catholic ones. Luther would have been a saint as you say , but if only Rome let him be on some of his minor calls for reforms. There had been divisions of thought yet unity in obedience before in Catholicism. …You seem to agree with 19 th century popes about freedom of conscience ,that is only for Catholics. Do you not have a conscience , and do you not have freedom , to deny or accept your catholic Church ? Can not Rome accept a conscience , and freedom , that finds Christ elsewhere ? Even Christ allowed for this dignity .He may have been sad for a wayward soul , but he never crossed this line of freedom and conscience of a personal decision. It is only catholic assertion ,that Jerome would have put up some of the abuses of Papal evolution and power(and armies). I am sure he would have been appalled at the abuse of indulgences. I am also sure the pope would not have told him to shut up or get out either. That is ,Rome was much more flexible and tolerant (and not all powerful or political yet either) in Jerome’s day.

 

[Cat_Herder]

You seem to agree with 19 th century popes about freedom of conscience ,that is only for Catholics. Do you not have a conscience , and do you not have freedom , to deny or accept your catholic Church ? Can not Rome accept a conscience , and freedom , that finds Christ elsewhere ? Even Christ allowed for this dignity .He may have been sad for a wayward soul , but he never crossed this line of freedom and conscience of a personal decision. It is only catholic assertion ,that Jerome would have put up some of the abuses of Papal evolution and power(and armies). I am sure he would have been appalled at the abuse of indulgences.

Do you know what an indulgence is? And what papal “armies” are you referring to? My experience has been that the vast majority of Protestants who complain about indulgences and the Crusades are misinformed about both (and haven’t engaged in a perusal of any secular encyclopedia, which would clear up the misconceptions).

 

[po18guy]

To a protestant we are One. To a catholic only catholics are one .To Jehovah Witness ,they are the only true ones .To Mormons they have it .To Seventh Day Adventists ,they have it too .I could say my denomination is “one” ,all around the world ,we have the same beliefs that is one, holy and following apostolic teachings.

Most protestant churches don’t forgive sins, which is good, because they have no authority to forgive in God’s name. My sins were forgiven this afternoon. What a grace! What a blessing!

You are shotgunning the Church in your replies. I have been reminded to focus on the topic, and so I will.

 

[PRmerger]

Part of me understood what you say right away , but part of me finds it creepy .Perhaps the "child’ in me says it is creepy .[/qute]

Perhaps. Perhaps you’ve also been influenced by society to think of sex as dirty? Pleasurable but dirty. And so to conflate the Eucharist, the most sublime and profound sacrament, with the marital embrace, is* to you *quite discomfiting.

It could be creepy cause it is if one is very satisfied with connecting with Christ and then you say you must drink His blood ,

 

[PRmerger]

A couples intimacy is a foreshadow of spiritual bliss with Christ. It is not related to eating Christ and drinking His blood.

They are both One Flesh Unions, are they not?

If you read the gospels on drinking His blood Jesus himself says these things are "spiritual’ , and not fleshly.

Are you talking about John 6:63?

I am sure people find the Eucharist fulfilling , deep and right . However, there are many religious things to do , in most religions that feel very right and very good ,hence their deep devotion and following.

Surely you’re not saying that just because someone feels “very right and very good” about their religious ritual that it is right and good to do this?

I have experienced BOTH sides of Eucharistic devotion ,and found not let down in consubstantiation. In fact , I sense a freedom almost a cheating of my old catholic holdings, that it be so simple ,yet so profound as a secret yet open .Secret cause it is Him and I, but open because it is for all in it’s simplicity and truth.

How is that different that transubstantiation? Isn’t transubstantiation “simple yet so profound”?

How many rules do you need for just when and how it happens or by whom, and in what ,and what to do it it falls or spills ,and how to clean ,if the blood is dry or still wet and what to do with remains and any cloth He touched ?

Does consubstantiation not have these “rules”?

Have you read the “rules” about a multitude of human activities? There’s an entire handbook just for driving! And for administration of immunizations! And for cleaning your dishwasher! And for putting your child to bed! And for marriage! And for applying for citizenship!

This journey of depth and intimacy and relevancy in “remembrance” knows no bounds of denomination, Protestant or Catholic, or of transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation. In that we have both traveled together I believe .

Yes, but you have no One Flesh Union. How much intimacy can you have with your spouse if you have no means of the marital embrace?

 

[PRmerger]

To a catholic only catholics are one

You are misinformed, david. The Catholic Church does not profess that “only catholics are one.”

Do you not have a conscience , and do you not have freedom , to deny or accept your catholic Church ? Can not Rome accept a conscience , and freedom , that finds Christ elsewhere ?

“The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.” Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[PJM]

=Gabriel of 12;7256630]You are greatly mistaken david ruiz, there is no Luke 34. Luke 24 gives no detail of other than the twelve. And only these who remained faithful to Jesus teachings of his eucharist, were able to recognize Jesus in the breaking of bread from Luke 24:35.

We are talking after the resurrection Jesus gives his apostles the power to forgive and retain confessed sin. All the many other disciples abandoned Jesus and would not of recognized Jesus in the breaking of bread from Luke 24.

So you deny John 20:23 “Who sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained”? Jesus did not say these words, only gave the commission to preach the gospel? never mind baptism, teach, feed his flock?

And you want it known here that you and your community “We preach the truth of the gospel”? How is that when you refuse to believe this revelation from God, who gave the power of binding and loosing sin on earth as Jesus does to them in Heaven? Can you help unravel your double standard to the gosples?

So if you don’t hear confessions to retain? Then why has the Church practiced this ministry of reconciliation for the past 2000 years since the resurrection? In fact the didache teaches us to confess our sins before entering the Eucharistic liturgy.

** 1John.1 Verses 8 to 10:** "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

** 1John.5 Verses 16 to 17**"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. ** There is sin which is mortal**; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, ** but there is sin which is not mortal. **

** John.20 Verses 20 to 23**]" When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. ** Jesus said to them ** again, “Peace be with you. ** As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” ** And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

***THIS being said [2 Tim 3:15-17] proclaims its truth! ONLY GOD CAN, and ONLY GOD DOES forgive sins! Is the OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE CC.

So what does the priest do?

It is the ROLE of the Priest, GIVEN BY JESUS HIMSELF to them to:

1. Hear ones full and acurate Confesion
2. Determine if the person IS TRULY SORRY for there sins and will, with God’s grace TRY to avoid sinning this way again
3. IF sorrow is present: the priest will comsole the person on ways thy might avoid sinning this way again.
4. GRANT ABSOLUTION: "I ABSOLVE you from your sins in the name of the Father, the Son an the Holy Spirit [then Blesses you]***

**5. Gives a “Pennacne” [replacing the OT sacrifice of priest for sins]

1. THE ROLE OF THE PRIEST IN A VERY REAL SENSE TO TO GIVE GOD PERMISSION TO FORGIVE ONES SINS. WITHOUT SUCH GOD WILL NOT ACT!**

Heb.5: 1 “For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.”

**Num.15: 28 **“And the priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who commits an error, when he sins unwittingly, to make atonement for him; and he shall be forgiven.”

Lev.4:2 " And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings; so the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven.
35 And all its fat he shall remove as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar, upon the offerings by fire to the LORD; and the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.

Again we see the PERFECTION of the OT in the Actions of Christ in the NT!

 

[david_ruiz]

Do you know what an indulgence is? And what papal “armies” are you referring to? My experience has been that the vast majority of Protestants who complain about indulgences and the Crusades are misinformed about both (and haven’t engaged in a perusal of any secular encyclopedia, which would clear up the misconceptions).

I guess we stray from thread as you stray from my comment about your comment on Jerome .Indulgence definition is not necessary , suffice to say that those living in Tetzel’s time were definitely split and some Catholics thought it was “abuse”. I am not talking about the Crusades . Please, it was a general statement of temporal power that the pope acquired after Jerome and lost in 1870. In specific, papal armies in Italy 's fight against Papal armies is what came to my mind also. It is a poor tactic to beschmerch a negative comment instead of shedding light on the comment itself . I am sorry if you feel someone saying there was an indulgence problem in Christ’s church in the 16 th century, or that the pope had soldiers at his command is misinformed or has misconceptions.

 

[david_ruiz]

Most protestant churches don’t forgive sins, which is good, because they have no authority to forgive in God’s name. My sins were forgiven this afternoon. What a grace! What a blessing!

You are shotgunning the Church in your replies. I have been reminded to focus on the topic, and so I will.

Am partly happy and sad for you .Part of me senses you are on the hokis-pokis treadmill.You must be back in the confessional next week , else if you die you will suffer in purgatory. Part of me is with you in that I was reminded today also of my forgiveness. Please tell me God will sue my church for patent infringement on proclaiming forgiveness of sins without Rome’s doctrines on it’s proper “channeling” . What you said is that my sins are still "officially’ with me. They are retained . I am going to hell. Yet your church recognizes that we (protestants) are citizens of His kingdom , though not in fullness, headed for heaven, though in little dingys and not on the “Queen Mary”. Which is it ? Am I going to hell ? If not, who forgave my sins in this protestant unauthorized church ?

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;7289780:

Part of me understood what you say right away , but part of me finds it creepy .Perhaps the "child’ in me says it is creepy .[/qute]

Perhaps. Perhaps you’ve also been influenced by society to think of sex as dirty? Pleasurable but dirty. And so to conflate the Eucharist, the most sublime and profound sacrament, with the marital embrace, is* to you *

quite discomfiting.

Wait…I must stop you right here, david. ** I **don’t say I must drink His blood. )Of course you know Who commanded that we drink His blood!)

Huh? No Catholic teaching professes this!

Indeed! This is Catholic teaching!

Thank you for suggesting the possibility that my confuddled view on sex (dirty ) might be why I do not equate transubstantiation with sexual intimacy .No on that smokescreen . You agree with my point of why I don’t .Sexual intimacy is a physical and hopefully a spiritual union. Communion is first and foremost a spiritual union. I do not require a physical aspect to it , for there will be none of that in heaven(as you agreed) .You require the physical aspect of it ,claiming Jesus requires it .I say Christ requires the spiritual one.You avoided my analogy of the marriage bed and mingling blood, to make it “deep and profound”. Please , that is not a doctrine but an analogy of how I view your requirement of flesh sharing in a spiritual “communion”.

 

[PRmerger]

Am I going to hell ?

Catholics are forbidden to declare anyone’s condemnation to hell. That is for God and God alone.

Are you allowed to tell someone he’s going to hell in your church?

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you for suggesting the possibility that my confuddled view on sex (dirty ) might be why I do not equate transubstantiation with sexual intimacy

No one is equating transubstantiation with sexual intimacy, david.

Communion is first and foremost a spiritual union.

Perhaps in your church it is a spiritual union. But in the Catholic Church Jesus is present, in His Flesh. When we partake of the Eucharist we are joined to Him in the most intimate and profound union there is.

Just like a husband and wife can have a spiritual union. But only when they enjoy the marital embrace are they sublimely and intimately One Flesh.

I do not require a physical aspect to it , for there will be none of that in heaven(as you agreed) .You require the physical aspect of it ,claiming Jesus requires it

Ok. But a marriage without a physical aspect to it lacks that sublime intimacy.

I can imagine you telling your spouse, “Honey, we have no need of physical intimacy, as we’re spiritually connected. And we’re looking in anticipation of the heavenly union anyway, so no need for the marital embrace.”

You avoided my analogy of the marriage bed and mingling blood, to make it “deep and profound”. Please , that is not a doctrine but an analogy of how I view your requirement of flesh sharing in a spiritual “communion”.

Ok. But then you have no means of physical intimacy with Jesus. Only spiritual intimacy.

Imagine a marriage like that! :sad_yes:

And just to avoid a discussion about the marriage of Joseph and Mary–yes, they did not enjoy the marital embrace, for their union was indeed already a union of which we only are in anticipation of.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=PRmerger;7290593]They are both One Flesh Unions, are they not?

Yes and no.I am one with my spouse in the design of physical contact ,not because we eat and drink our flesh . Jesus physically died and for me and I die and resurrect in Him by faith ,not because I literally eat and drink His body.

Are you talking about John 6:63?

“Does this offend you ?” (you say that we must eat him , I say that he should suffer death). “What and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where He was before ?”
(Your offended that I shall suffer death and not reign as king. I have not even told you I am leaving this place, going back to heaven ! Sorry, this King of yours is not for now.) “It is the spirit that quickeneth” (makes you see that the son of man must die and ascend). When Peter refused this the Lord said get behind me Satan). "The flesh profiteth nothing.The words I speak to are spirit and they are life ". (His words are life, not eating his flesh)

S

urely you’re not saying that just because someone feels “very right and very good” about their religious ritual that it is right and good to do this?

Oh please, I wonder if you purposely miss my point. I believe in absolute truth and not in relativism, like yourself . The meaning you “missed” was that of our ability to be deceived by good religious activity and feelings following.

How is that different that transubstantiation? Isn’t transubstantiation “simple yet so profound”?

Not as simple as consubstantiation.

Does consubstantiation not have these “rules”?

Absolutely not as many.

Have you read the “rules” about a multitude of human activities? There’s an entire handbook just for driving! And for administration of immunizations! And for cleaning your dishwasher! And for putting your child to bed! And for marriage! And for applying for citizenship!

So you agree, you have a long list of rules for this , and many other things.

Yes, but you have no One Flesh Union. How much intimacy can you have with your spouse if you have no means of the marital embrace?

Again ,you equate flesh union with eating and drinking the body and blood. With Christ I do not nor do I with my spouse.

 

[PRmerger]

[Yes and no.I am one with my spouse in the design of physical contact ,not because we eat and drink our flesh .

Exactly. That is very Catholic of you to say that, david!

And you make my point very well. You become one flesh with your spouse during the marital embrace.

Yet, sadly, you cannot become One Flesh with Jesus, for you have no Eucharist.

Jesus physically died and for me and I die and resurrect in Him by faith ,not because I literally eat and drink His body.

The Scriptures attest to the contrary, david.

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

Not a single verse says that.

Does this offend you ?(you say that we must eat him ,I say that he should suffer death)What and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where He was before?
Your offended that I shall suffer death and not reign as king. I have not even told you I am leaving this place, going back to heaven ! Sorry, this King of yours is not for now.) “It is the spirit that quickeneth” (makes you see that the son of man must die and ascend). When Peter refused this the Lord said get behind me Satan) "The flesh profiteth nothing.The words I speak to are spirit and they are life ". (His words are life, not eating his flesh)

Actually, if you’re going to take that verse correctly, he says “the flesh profits nothing”. NOT “eating my flesh profits nothing.”

AND, if you take that verse to mean, literally, “the flesh profits nothing”, then Jesus’ flesh on the cross did NOTHING?
[/quote]

 

[david_ruiz]

Considering that you admit that you had to break several Biblical based rules to take a consubstantiated Host including your own Baptismal promises (and possibly) Confirmation promises I wonder if that sense of freedom does not almost equate with the sense of freedom one feels when one “gets away with a sinful act.” And I am not accusing of knowingly doing anything purposely - I am just pointing out that feelings aren’t facts.

So true. You are strong on your point of oaths and loyalty .Could you please tell me what I oathed at Baptism (infant) and at Confirmation ? Did well at Confirmation classes but honestly do not remember. Really am curious .Thanks.