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

[guanophore]

The word blessed, like so many other words, with a differnt emphasis, can mean two different things. Look, bless-ed, and blessed! Mary was blessed among women, not above women! Our pastor has preached on the vital part that Mary played in the salvation plan, but stops short of lifting her up to a lofty position with Christ and God!

Then he has stopped short of God’s revelation.

Luke 1:50-55
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
52 He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 according to the promise he made to our ancestors,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever."

It was God who lifted up the lowly Mary, who filled her with good things, and overshadowed her, so that all generations would call her blessed. God put the powerful out of their thrones, and lifted up Mary, the humble handmaid. The Apostolic Church only recognizes what God has already done for her.

Yes, she was a holy woman, but more important she was obedient to the voice of God!

Yes, and this is exactly what Jesus taught. She was blessed to bear him, and nurse Him, but she is even MORE blessed because she heard the Word of God and obeyed it.

Should we ask her to intervene for us and pray on our behalf? I think not, we have a mediator who intervenes on our behalf, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

It seems that you don’t understand the difference between the eternal mediation that only Christ can do, and the believers’ role as an intercessor.

Mary should not be discounted, neither shall she be exalted! God chose her, and sanctified her womb for the birth of our Saviour!

If she really should not be exalted, then she was in sin when she confessed that she was exalted, as she did in her prayer above. She clearly believed and confessed that God had raised up the lowly (herself) and done great things for her. If what you say is true, then we should not use her as a role model, because she is missing the mark.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Beleevr,
“God chose her, and sanctified her womb for the birth of our Saviour!” says 1Beleevr

This is actually our argument FOR exalting her. Well… At least one of them. Yet, she should not be exalted? You were the one who put exclamation marks.

The GOD of ALL Creation CHOSE Mary AND SANCTIFIED HER WOMB FOR the birth of OUR SAVIOR!

 

[david_ruiz]

JL: Your so called so clear progression does not mean Mary had other children. Even his kin didn’t reject him and Mary (house) certainly didn’t. James was later bishop of Jerusalem, hardly a position for a real son who rejected his own Mother. Allowing another to take care of her. We find them all in the upper room at Pentecost. [Acts1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.] Do you suppose Jesus on the cross didn’t know they would be in the upper room? Israel his mother’s children as a nation did reject him and still do.

Thank-you, but you are not being honest to the argument .Some have held me to a high standard of technicality ,holding me to every word ,jot and tittle ,which is O.K.( after all, I am your guest ,critiquing strongly your views).Are you saying his kinsman believed always from the beginning ? Of course not , for you are also aware of the scriptures that tell us so directly- “they did not believe at this time”. Thread #598 I stated this with the phrase “At this stage” they rejected Him ,that is when Jesus said he was without honor in his household .This was the context of my statement .Sorry, I was not clearer,.The statement of their rejection was for a time , just as Jesus statement of ,“My God ,my God ,why have you forsaken me ?” was for a time(which was also prophesied) But thank-you , for furthering the dialogue and sharing their salvation , after the Cross, which by itself is a dramatic, beautiful story…It still stands ,the need to answer His house rejecting Him,temporarily(apart form countrymen ,kinsmen -relatives)

 

[david_ruiz]

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 12:1[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Philippians 4:18[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Peter 2:5[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Col 1:24[/BIBLEDRB]

Thank-you .may I always love your shared scriptures. The whole context of them says you and I are priests and offer up sacrifices of ourselves ,our service ,with no intermediary (ordained priest) and no mention of “blood” sacrifice ,which was old testament, so I believe.

 

[david_ruiz]

Then he has stopped short of God’s revelation.

Luke 1:50-55
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
52 He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 according to the promise he made to our ancestors,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever."

 

[guanophore]

I know it is Catholic dogma .and would wish it would have stopped there -universal priesthood

The Catholic Church is bound to faithfully preserve and promulgate all that was committed to her by the Apostles. Unlike modern evangelical churches, she does not have the freedom to jettison sections of the One Faith that might be found objectionable to modern society for one reason or another.

As such, she cannot “stop there” when declaring the full gospel requires the WHOLE gospel.

I have not erred one bit on what Catholicism is.

This appears to be a conviction that exists only in your imagination, but has no corrrelate to the reality that is shared by those who espouse Catholic faith.

Sorry ,I was not specific enough for you.When I grew up He was placed in a tabernacle which had a door and then a veil. 99% of the time the priest brought Him out if needed at Mass and back in again

In truth,I did correctly assume that this is what you were referencing. I wanted to check my assumption, though, just in case.

Catholics honor the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For some reason you have confused this honor as “separating” Him from the faithful, but it is not. It is possible that you felt personally separated form Him when you were growing up. I know that I did, but it was a reflection of what was in me, not what was within the veil.

If there was a Mass, then communion was celebrated on the altar within plain view of all the people.

If some of the reserved elements were included in the distribution, then it was because the Eucharist is to be consumed at the earliest opportunity.

.From my point of view , that was a very special thing ,like going into the holy of holies (another name for tabernacle). I believe I am not in error .

Not sure what you mean by “that was a very special thing”, so not sure if you are in error. However, you are correct that we reverence Christ as Lord in the elements of bread and wine, so visiting with Him in the tabernacle is a very special thing. Again, it is a way for Him to be more present to us, not to create separation from us. When you compare His Real Presence in the Eucharist with the dividing walls and veils in the temple, you make some fundamental errors in your assumptions.

Again,you push me to specifics ,which is good ,though you give none,but someone else charitably did. For the most part the priest goes into the tabernacle .I have never seen anyone else do it.I knew the consecrated host could be administered by trained laity ,and now I know can also go into the tabernacle for the host per priests oversight /deputizing etc.

Yes, those who are commissioned as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist do retrieve and return the Blessed Sacrament to the tabernacle. However, you are correct that it should be done by the priest or the deacon. However, you still seem to be making the assumption that, since it is the duty of the ordained to take responsibility for the Eucharist, that this somehow separates Him from the laity.

So are you saying a Mass and my sunday service with communion are just like yours as far as the role and attitude of laity and pastor/priest relationships ?

I doubt this very much.

So true ,but we have been discussing just what the roles are and for whom and by whom . Listening to you ,one would think there is no difference  across Christendom on these issues.

Oh contraire! I have not even yet begun…

Again ,are you church’s ministers role identical to my church’s ?

It is not likely that your ministers are within the Apostolic Succession, so I would assume not.

Don’t tire so fast .You know I have mentioned them countless times ,and you keep forgetting .My views can be held together and can “compute”.

Since you are content with your views, and you are comfortable that they can hold together, and they “compute” for you, then the actual reality of the Apostolic faith is really irrelevant in your case. It is appropriate to commend people to their faith choices, even when they depart from those held by the Church founded upon Peter.

] you are reacting to my citing of historical evidence for a ministerial role -that of presidents over a church service.

No, I am not. I have no arguement whatsoever with the historical evience for a ministerial role of the presider.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, His Church Universal, as it used to be called(Catholic Church).We are at odds today on just what is Catholic today, just what is His body,what is His Church.

Yes, I see your point. Since coming to CAF, I have learned the the majority of my separated brethren have distorted and grossly deficient concept of the nature of the Church. I think this is a byproduct of their spiritual ancestors departing from the Apostolic Succession, and redefining the concept of “church” to befit their own agendas.

Wouldn’t have to if we had the same definition of “His Church” or at least we would not be defensive about it.Should we be defensive of the errors of all but one of the seven churches in Revelations ?

There is only One Church. Each of the communities reflected in the book of revelation are all part of that One Church. You are right, it all boils down to how “church” is defined. Catholics are bound to accept the definition passed down to us by the Apostles. Our separated brethren are free to adopt whatever defintion conforms to their needs in any given situation and age.

Of course, but to say that great saints and theologians and popes were in darkness, even speaking against those things you hold true today ?

All of us were in darkness at one time. One does not become a great saint unless they leave the darkness and cleave to the Light, therefore, no great saints remained in darkness. Theologians can only avoid darkness if they speculate within the boundaries of the One Faith. There are a great many of them that have been, and are now, in great darkness. There have also been many corrupt Popes. No, these historical facts do not go against what I hold true today. Jesus said there would be wolves among the sheep.

Except as we have noted ,some past errors of the church.

This Church cannot make errors, as she is infallible. This again goes back to the concept of Church. The Aposltes taught that Jesus is the Head of the Church, and that the HS is her Soul. It is these divine elements that prevent the Church from error.

How do you acount that some of them are a return to previous revelations ?

It is not the consistent revelations that are the problem, but the departures.

The point was they were inside the camp before the water,They were in the camp of the apostolic experience.The whole point was these outsiders were now on the inside ,therefore who could deny their baptism-for with confession(baptism) we show the work of faith in Christ.

Yes, I agree with the point. This was God’s way of demonstrating to the Church that the Spirit is not separated from the water in Baptism.

 

[MrStain]

To answer the question: Yes, of course they do.

 

[guanophore]

Mention many things but greed ? One could be cynical also and say Rome was greedy with it’s sale of indulgences, half for St.Peters and half for the local prince.But that is cynical .The bigger issue was a spiritual one with these Tetzel indulgences.

Not to overlook greed, of course. One of the seven deadlies! yes, there were greedy clerics that took advantage of the sheep in this corrupted manner.

Your error is equating “Rome” (by which you seem to refer to the Teaching Authority of the Church) with the despicable and sinful behavior of the wolves among the sheep. The people that did these things were acting apart from the Teachings of the Church.

No.I merely meant I can only glean from the experiences

It appears that you have “gleaned” some anti-Catholic sentiment, and erroneous ideas about the Catholic faith. Has it ever occurred to you that your “experience” may be biased?

So tell me where is such knowledge buried away ,where Luther fully rescinded and would have kissed the popes ring if allowed ? (did they kiss his ring back then ?) He resented civil war,religious war .That was not his fault but the churches ,for getting so intertwined in earthly politics for centuries.The disengagement was painful and bloody.

When you read about the last thoughts and expressions of Luther, I think it will be clear to you. It is not buried, but neither is it highlighted among our separated brethren, who don’t like to admit that he regretted the consequences of his actions, their faith being based upon his work.

For someone who resented civil and religious war, he certainly fomented it quite a bit.

I agree with you, though, it was not his fault that the church was so intertwined with politics and economics. It was painful and bloody on all sides.

 

[guanophore]

It matters because, as with all Marian doctrines/dogmas, its significance has to do with our understanding of Christ. Every Marian doctrine/dogma re-affirms and enhances our understanding of Jesus. It’s always all about Him!

This is the main point, PR. The Catholic Church must preserve and protect the whole gospel, and it is not up to us to decide which elements of it are “non-essential”. We may not even be able to see why they are essential in any given day and age, but the One Faith is like a seamless garment. When one begins to pull out "parts’ of it because they think they are irrelelvant (don’t matter) then the garment begins to unravel. We see the net effect of this in the plethora of denominations that have been created as the garment unravels, and is rewoven according to the modern sentiment.

 

[guanophore]

Remember the early church had trouble balancing flesh and spirit and good and evil.Some thought jesus came not in the flesh ,because he is so holy .Others thought the two do not mix: flesh and spirit .Some even thought sex was flesh ,and marriage a distraction ,and started divorcing one another,thinking this was more spiritual ,not to have the cares of a spouse.

No, David. This is another example of how your deficient notion of the Church has contributed to misunderstandings. The Church cannot err (because her divine elements prevent her from error), so the Church never had any trouble “balancing”. Member of her did have problems, and many sects espoused ideas contrary to the One Faith, and in so doing departed from the Church and her infallible teachings, such as Gnostics and Donatists. The One Faith is not defined by those who depart from it.

May I charitably put out there for thought ,that some of the views given to Mary ,and her womb and Joseph etc have similar problems.If God so chose ,He could have been Mary’s 2nd or third born (with earlier prophecies changing to match ).

Yes, He could have, but He chose not to do so. Mary lived a life consecrated to Christ. It is difficult for moderns to understand and appreciate the consecration of one’s sexuality to God (becoming a eunuch for the Kingdom), even for “Catholics” who have a faith tradition of consecrated persons.

Certainly we both agree that the virgin birth happened was so that man can not suggest “man” being the father.The miracle was not a miracle for miracles sake ,but so that we may believe that indeed he is the Son of God,and that he was fully man and fully God ,to satisfy God’s perfect justice.

I agree, God does not do miracles just to show His justice only, but to instruct us about Himself.

Equally, as can be seen by the modern myth of the descendents of Jesus and Mary Magedella, any natural offspring that Mary may have had would have ascended to roles of temporal importance that would be inappropriate and distracting for the Gospel.

That it happened this way also because He is so holy and can not mix with sinful flesh is what we are debating still ,after 2000 years .Separation is a key word and underlying effect of Marion doctrine , from my point of view.

Further evidence of your distorted perceptions of the Catholic faith.

She is not “amongst” women , she is blessed above women .Her marriage is above most .Her womb is separated from fleshly consecration,

David, if you think that Jesus did not consecrate Mary’s womb by becoming flesh within it, then I don’t know what to tell you. Your anti-Catholic bias has so distorted your perceptions that it may not be possible for you to even hear or understand what the Church believes and teaches. You may be doomed to object to your erroneous ideas of what you think the Church teaches.

He was fed by Mary but was a part distinct from Mary,hence Mary did not have to be “perfect”,howbeit perhaps holy ,as any mother should.

He took flesh from her flesh, David. Yes, he was a separate being within her womb, but all of His physicality was taken from her body, just as all human infants do.

 

[guanophore]

I clearly remember that He rebuked Peter and called him the Adversary because some of the thoughts he expressed were contrary to the Revelation of God.

 

[PRmerger]

The Catholic Church is bound to faithfully preserve and promulgate all that was committed to her by the Apostles. Unlike modern evangelical churches, she does not have the freedom to jettison sections of the One Faith that might be found objectionable to modern society for one reason or another.

Indeed. One very clear example is with Jesus’ teaching on divorce. The CC has not ever felt the liberty to change Jesus’ teaching to make it more palatable. If you divorce and re-marry you commit adultery. :sad_yes:

There are very few churches that have retained this very hard saying of Jesus in their doctrines.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, you are “in union with His flesh” when you do corporal works of mercy, in the same way that I am “in union with my husband” when I serve him. But I am not intimately joined to him when I do this. It is only through this magnificent One Flesh Union that we are able to achieve the sublime union that was meant for us. And meant for man and God, too.

Excellent analogy! It may be lost on those unable, as you pointed out, to follow analogy.

 

[jlhargus]

This is such a broad analogy for Mary not having other children, it borders on ludicrous! Of course she was a virgin before Christ’s birth, and Joseph did not have relations with her until AFTER the birth(amount of time afterwards not clear)of Christ. But using this verse, ad nauseum is grasping at straws! It is the East Gate of the Temple, for crying out loud! Isn’t this the one Christ will return through when He comes back?

JL: It wasn’t posted as analogy for Mary not having other children. It was posted in answer to Daivid’s comment on the ark and Mary being a streach.

 

[guanophore]

yes it us ,what some call laity.

I dont’ think so, David. I have never heard of any group using the term in this way. This term is used to distinguish a group of persons who are not specialists in a certain profession from those that are.

The NT priesthood is of Christ, and is after the order of Melchizedek. He has fulfilled the pattern in the OT of a High priest, a ministerial priesthood,and the priestly community.

Saying the NT priesthood is equivalent to “laity” is a gross disregard for the position of Christ. He is our Great High Priest, and the ONLY MEDIATOR between man and God. This is a position that only He can fill, and it cannot be filled by “laity”.

There are other interpretations of the authority Jesus gave the apostles,and just who are their successors etc.,and are as old as yours.

No, I don’t think so. Yes, there are other interpretations, but none of them came from the Apostles.

That is why writers of the new testament were very careful in what and how they wrote ,and warned that such trouble would happen ,and had already happened.

I agree they were careful, which is why it is so puzzling that you cannot accept that God gave authority to MEN to forgive sins on earth. It is written right there.

O.K. but I disagree, for Paul says a priest is for sacrifices ,and we are done with sacrifices.A presbyter is not associated with "sacrifices ,but for other church administrations.

Yes, a priest’s duty is to offer sacrifice. This is what Jesus has enabled through the Apostolic Succession. If you think the Passover Lamb was not sacrificed, you are mistaken. If you think that “rememberance” is anything less than anamnesis (enacted ritual) then you are mistaken. The Eucharist makes us present to Him at the foot of His cross. He was sacrificed “once for all”, just as the Jews only crossed out of Egypt “once for all”, yet the Passover made them all present to what happened, centuries after the fact.

The statement " we are done with sacrifices" implies that you think the Eucharistic celebration means a priest is making a sacrifice to God.

It is also unclear who this royal “we” are that are “done”. When Jesus commanded the anamnesis to the Apostles, and they to their disciples, He clearly did not intend for it to be "done’ because He was crucified.

Precisely ,what I stated is what Jesus has said .He tells me I am His Temple , a New Covenant, that I am a priest, etc.This has nothing to do with being shepherded and being under administration.

This is a common modern misconception. On the contrary, the Apostles taught that all who are members of His Body are to be shepherded and to be under the authority of those appointed by Christ. this concept of “just me and Jesus, nobody else” is contrary to the Apostolic teaching.

.It is different issue ,as noted above .Priest designates sacrifice while “presider” alludes to order and administration.

The aposltes never separated the apostolic authority to order and administrate from the Sacred Mysteries. Those who are ordained by the Bishops have as their primary duty to minister God’s grace to the flock. Some ministers are not necessarily good leaders, and they need help ordering and administrating for the flock.

what was it exactly that you though he was “presiding” over?

It is quite clear in the writings of Justin Martyr, but if you throw out this historical evidence, it will make it easier for you to fill in the lacunae with your own fantasy.

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps ,but do you think the role of your priest and my pastor are the same ,and are related the same to the congregation ?

Since I am not familiar with your faith community, I don;t know. I can speculate based upon the wealth of the anti-catholic positions you hold, and say no. The role of the Catholic priest is to serve as an extension of the Bishop in ministering to the flock.

It seems that you are also quite anti-sacramental, so it is not likely that your congregation is sacramental, and therefore, the pastor does not have sacramental duties.

Any pastor takes his definition of his role from the Catholic Church. Some ideas and practices are then separated out (depending upon the preferences of the group) and what remains is the remnant of Catholic faith that was not abandoned through apostasy. For that reason, I would speculate that your pastor conducts duties that your congregation considers to care for the flock.

one could think as a Catholic that to be a priest would ultimate thing spiritually

This should definitely be the case for those who are called to serve in that capacity.

When a person fuflills his calling, that is the ultimate thing for him spiritually (he will not find happiness elsewhere). This is true of those called to marriage, and vowed celibate life as well.

.Were people wrong in Jesus day to lift up ,as apart, the Pharisees

Can you provide any evidence that this occurred?

It seems to me that all the available evidence indicates that they lifted themselves up as apart.

O.K. you got me on a technicality ,but otherwise you assail me wrongly .My experience and knowledge of my own catholic upbringing is quite O.K.

It may seem “ok” to you, but it is lacking in significant portions of Truth and fact.

Only a priest may offer up a sacrifice. “He is the representative thru whom the real and mystical Christ is offered up”.I can not and you can not consecrate or touch such things. I am not priest enough.

This seems like a childlike way of looking at the situation,and certainly, many of those who leave the Church do so because their faith has never progressed beyond childhood. The fact that some members of the Body are called to specific ministries and some are called to others does not mean that some are “less” than others, or that their ministry is “not enough”. I think Paul makes this quite clear.

I need an intermediary, the priest and the Church (even though I have Christ in me and am the Temple thereof ).

It is sad that you separate yourself from those who are called to the ministerial priesthood by putting them in some category of “intermediary” (which does not exist in the NT outside of Christ Himself). There are no “layers” between you and Christ. The priest does not stand in the way of the people.

.It may seem I am trying to make more of myself than needed, but I believe I am just trying to state and testify to what the Lord has said He made of me…

Oh no, I am confident that you must make all this of yourself and that it is quite needed by you. You must maintain these ideas, or you would have to challenge those you have embraced to replace the Apostolic Teaching. I trust you do indeed testify to your experience, limited though it is.

I have been kindly corrected that an assigned person (deputized-my word) can go into the tabernacle also to help distribute the consecrated Host. (Sorry never saw that as a Catholic ,maybe we had more priests back then )

Yes, there were more ordinary ministers, and by and large, the laity did not serve as extraordinary ministers. This task was given to deacons or at least seminarians. The point is that the tabernacle and the veil don’t “separate” or “hide” Jesus as you asserted.

 

[guanophore]

Thank-you .The question is how ? There is no evidence they held confession, or were confessors. There is evidence for remission of sins (also a commission) thru the preaching of the gospel -much evidence.The rest evolved.

Do you think because something “evolves” that it does not come from God? Do you also think this about the NT, which was not canonized until 382 AD? Do you think this about the definition of the Trinity, the hypostatic union?

It is easy to say there is “no evidence” when you discount the evidence that exists. It is true what Newman said - to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

 

[guanophore]

The answer to this worn out argument is: No, the priests do not have the authority to forgive sins, even if the apostles did! They can listen to them, but that’s the extent of it! God forgives sin!

So, what did the inspired text mean when it said “given such authority to MEN”?

 

[guanophore]

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 12:1[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Philippians 4:18[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Peter 2:5[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Col 1:24[/BIBLEDRB]

I think that these verses don’t apply to David or his faith community. Whoever those “we” are that he is representing - they are "done’ with sacrifices. I am not sure where they find that in scripture, but obviously it is not any of these verses!

It is impossible to understand the role of the priest when one does not understand anamnesis. Without an understanding of the nature of the Passover meal, David and 1beleevr will never “get it”.