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

[guanophore]

guanophore;7412612:

Then he has stopped short of God’s revelation.

Great scriptures .This is what flowed out of Mary’s mouth to Elizabeth: Holy Scripture, Hannah’s Song from 1Sam2 and Psalms.
. David mentions this and Hannah also ,that God does this thru out history -they did not infer that God put David in a heavenly throne nor did Hannah infer this .Are you inferring here that Mary is suggesting she is being put on a throne ? I thought she was lifted up with the honor of carrying the Christ-child-she was not from a palace,though she had a blood line to king david. All this is not stopping short of “revelation”. She being on a throne is.

This is outside the scope of this thread. The mother of the King derives her role from her Son. If you read how Solomon greeted his mother when she came to court the Jewish understanding of this is made quiet clear. Throne is definitely involved.

 

[1beleevr]

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

Which inspired text would that be, darlin’? Does it specifically say they can forgive sins like God does? If I went to a priest for confession, I wouldn’t feel certain that they were forgiven; just because he said so!

 

[1beleevr]

Beleevr,
Apparently, Scripture does not convince you too much. What is YOUR personal interpretation of John 20:23 and Matthew 16:19 (in light of Isaiah 22:22) and what the keys ACTUALLY mean?

And nice “argument” against his proof. “You are wrong” is the BEST grabbing-at-straws argument. In any case, I would hardly consider a post of that size with biblical foreshadowings, reasonable parallels and a logical conclusion to be “grabbing at straws” especially when the argument is directed towards. Sola Scriptura advocates (I am guessing that is the case here). Nor would anybody else if they actually understood the argument.

Is it just by chance that there are that many parallels as Mary being the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament? Do you really think that it is “ludicrous” when all the evidence WE need to believe it is right there AND we cite it for you? If you think it is all by chance that there ARE parallels, then that is fine. You actually have a legitimate reason to call us ludicrous. Be like atheists… But do not call us ludicrous if you provide no argument or think it is NOT by chance. Just say, “I do not agree and here is why…” And you are wrong about the “until AFTER” part because all it says is “until” which means just that. You added the “after” part. According to the modern assumption of “until” that she DID, then you are saying that it happened AT THAT POINT where the event marked “until” is. And I felt ridiculously blasphemous just saying that so you better get my point. You Sola Scriptura advocates get furious when we say stuff that “is not in the Bible” but you all do the same things. It does not say she sinned but you believe it. It does not say she had other sons but you believe it. It does not say “Mother of God” but you do NOT believe it. PICK ONE! Makes me think that you do not believe these things BECAUSE they are Catholic doctrine.

Anyway, a person does not understand the graces received from the Sacrament of Reconciliation (not to mention the other Sacraments especially the Eucharist) unless they have done it.

Jesus gave the Apostles the authority. Not sure what the confusion is here. Either Jesus can give them the authority or He cannot. In light of Him being GOD, we say He can. Now, either He DID give it to them or He did not. According to John and Matthew (see cited verse above), He did. So, He can and He did. This is why we believe in the authority of the Church. Among other things, but Jesus breathing the Holy Spirit on them and apostolic succession are the two big ones. Any other proof you need?

After nearly two years on this forum, I have come to the conclusion that catholics will interpret scripture like everyone else does, also to their own satisfaction. If you disagree, or offer a different slant, you are separated, wrong and blasphemous! So, if this is what you believe abou Mary, then fine! I can’t read these verses and glean from them that Mary was a perpetual virgin. She was before Christ’s birth, and may have been afterward, but humans do not know! And there is no “hard” evidence that Christ gave thse men the authority to forgive sin.

 

[guanophore]

Which inspired text would that be, darlin’?

I think if you honestly look at this text, it will be clear that your and David’s postion is consitent with the detractors of Christ, where the Catholic position resonates with that understood by the rejoicing disciples of Jesus.

Does it specifically say they can forgive sins like God does?

Is there some other meaning to “as the Father has sent me, so I send you”? Are you suggesting that Jesus does not forgive sins in the same way the Father does?

Matt 9:6-8
6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" — he then said to the paralytic — “Stand up, take your bed and go to your home.” 7 And he stood up and went to his home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings.

Who are these “human beings” (plural) if it was only Jesus the God-man who had this authority?

Why did all the Apostles teach their disciples that they had this authority? Why did they teach their successors, the Bishops that it had been passed on to them?

If I went to a priest for confession, I wouldn’t feel certain that they were forgiven; just because he said so!

Fortunately for us, our faith is not based upon our “feelings”, but upon our trust in the promises of God. Since He told them “whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, and those you retain are retained”, we can know with confident assurance that they are forgiven.

However, I think you may underestimate the great emotional relief that also can be expereinced through the sacrament. Though the sacrament is not influenced by our feelings, it can often impact them mightily.

 

[guanophore]

After nearly two years on this forum, I have come to the conclusion that catholics will interpret scripture like everyone else does, also to their own satisfaction.

It is true that we all interpret. Most of our separated brethren believe they interpret without any theological bias, and are guided by the HS.

Catholics intrepret under the bias of Sacred Tradition (what God has already revealed to His Church). For that reason, we are not at liberty to depart from what has been revealed through our own private interpretations. For good Catholics, you are right, this is very satisfying. For those who rebel against the Teachings of the Apostles, it is not very satisfying.

 If you disagree, or offer a different slant, you are separated, wrong and blasphemous!

It depends upon the “slant”, of course. If the slant carries one away from the Teaching of the Apostles, then yes, it separates. I do try to avoid telling people they are “wrong and blasphemous”. Having sojoured as a lapsed Catholic among my separated brethren for the better part of 20 years, I find most of them to be very sincere in their beliefs, even though they are a departure from what the Apostles beleived and taught. I also think there are very few that intend to insult the mysteries of the faith. Even the blasphemous comments that are made are usually made out of ignorance (like the Theotokos is not the Mother of God). Most of our separated brethren don;'t realize they have embraced heresies.

 So, if this is what you believe abou Mary, then fine! I can't read these verses and glean from them that Mary I do not know! And there is no "hard" evidence that Christ gave thse men the authority to forgive sin.

I agree with you entirely. The faith was never intended to be “gleaned from verses” as is the popular practice of Modern American Evangelicals. On the contrary, the faith was to be RECEIVED from the Apostles. The Scripture confirms the faith, and was produced out of that faith, but was not intended to be teacher apart from those appointed by Christ. Scripture is USEFUL for teaching, a role which was given to PEOPLE, not books, however Holy they may be.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE]Scripture is USEFUL … but was not intended to be teacher apart from those appointed by Christ.

Happy new year everybody .May I say once again ,humorously yet seriously, for it’s repetitiveness but,…your words would mean more separation , from my Lord and His Words and my experience with both ,as a Protestant.Has nothing to do with your experience, or my old Catholicism , simply my experience now…How about this: the same positive ,rewarding experience many Catholics have with the Eucharist and Mary ,many Protestants have only with the Lord and His Word. It is a very personal thing…I suppose if we are trying to diminish your experience with Mary, or a priest.or the Eucharist, or reliance on one particular church (Catholicism) and some of it’s traditions, it is only fair for you to try to diminish our direct experience with the Lord and His Word (the key word I believe would be “direct” ,like one on one , apart from the things I listed for you -Mary ,priest etc…Neither of us are trying to diminish experience with Christ .The difference is in the methodology ,or means to that end .Fair enough ? O.K. gotta watch the ball fall-

 

[guanophore]

Happy new year everybody .May I say once again ,humorously yet seriously, for it's repetitiveness but,...your words would mean more separation from my Lord and His Words and my experience with both ,as a Protestant.

Happy New Year to you also, David. May this year bring you even closer to the Lord and to His Christ.

I am confused about how these “words mean more separation”. You seem to be in agreement that there is One Church, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father of us all, How can unity with those whom Christ appointed cause “separation”? It seems like this could only be the case if you are in rebellion against that which He has revealed, and it really does not seem to me like you see yourself that way.

.How about this: the same positive ,rewarding experience many Catholics have with the Eucharist and Mary ,many Protestants have only with the Lord and His Word. It is a very personal thing…

Oh, yes! I totally can grok this point. In fact, the reason I left Catholicism was because my Baptist brethren taught me to read the Holy Scriptures. I fell in love, and was very angry at the Catholic Church for a long time for not teaching me to read the Scripture. Indeed, it is a very personal thing. I brought this with me when I returned to he Church He founded.

.I suppose if we are trying to diminish your experience with Mary, or a priest.or the Eucharist, or reliance on one particular church (Catholicism) and some of it’s traditions, it is only fair for you to try to diminish our direct experience with the Lord and His Word (the key word I believe would be “direct” ,like one on one , apart from the things I listed for you -Mary ,priest etc…Neither of us are trying to diminish experience with Christ .The difference is in the methodology ,or means to that end .Fair enough ? O.K. gotta watch the ball fall-

I am confused about this as well. I don’t understand why you think your experience with the Word must somehow be diminshed.

What would you have to give up, if you read it from the point of view of those who wrote it?

 

[david_ruiz]

The faith was never intended to be “gleaned from verses” as is the popular practice of Modern American Evangelicals.

 

[guanophore]

" Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God", Romans 10. One would think the written Word qualifies for the Word of God ,as well as oral .

Yes, of course. When this was written, the NT did not yet exist, but Paul was referring to the OT and the kerygma.

So, what do you understand “faith” to mean in this verse? Do you think that hearing the Word of God is sufficient for every believer? All they need to do is hear it preached, or read it themselves and they are all set?

Indeed preaching can be oral as Paul mentions. , but he also mentions, “as it is written” and “for the scripture saith” in several verses before the faith one. I do not think he alludes to his preaching ,or any preaching thru the ages would be different than from what is “written”, in this chapter.

I agree. But, he would also never expect what is written to be separated from what was being preached, as has happened. The Word of God, comprised of two equal strands (written and oral) was separated during the Reformation. The offspring (spiritual) of the Reformers have been separated from the fullness of the faith as espoused and preached by the Apostles for 500 years. Every generation drifts further and further from the Apostolic faith.

I suppose the antithesis of your statement would be ,“The faith was never intended to be “gleaned from traditions” as is the popular practice of modern Roman Catholics”.

You are right, when the Scripture is separated from the Sacred Tradition, just as much distortion can occur in the other direction.

Both thesis’s claim apostolic agreement and harmony,or at least strive for it,hold it as the ideal.

Except that you have created a strawman here. The Catholic Church does not hold or teach the thesis you have assigned to her.

How do you hold to that ideal goal ? Nothing beats getting it in writing .We are at odds in interpreting it. One says tradition/church has interpreted for us (and it may have) .The other says it must individually received from God (at least).One says it must be this ,the other says maybe ,but better get it for yourself to be sure ,directly from God.After all, that is how it all began ,the latter.

You are creating false dichotomies, David. A person who reads and understands, prays, and lives the scriptures as an individual in no way needs to be separated from what God has already revealed to the Church. That separation does not exist for us.

You imagin separation where it does not exist. Being in unity with the Apostilic faith is the BEST way to get it “directly from God”. It prevents distortion and abberations.

 

[david_ruiz]

I am confused about how these “words mean more separation”. You seem to be in agreement that there is One Church, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father of us all, How can unity with those whom Christ appointed cause “separation”? It seems like this could only be the case if you are in rebellion against that which He has revealed, and it really does not seem to me like you see yourself that way.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I hope you now understand this .For sure you understood one church encouraging scripture reading more than another ,per your testimony.And per my testimony the differences in attitude and understanding of the auhtority of scripture.
Precisely. We both think we are “apostolic”. Yours from “historical succession” , and mine from " apostolic is as apostolic does" which is ageless.

But how do you determine what apostolic does? Before you pull out your Bible, know that there are 30,000+ Protestant denominations who all disagree with you about what that Bible actually says. How do you know that you’re right and they’re wrong?

Let’s make it really easy.

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 10:9[/BIBLEDRB]

So strike out all the denominations that allow man to separate what God has united.

Who’s left?

 

[guanophore]

The quote should be , “your words mean more separation”.That is , if I were to look at God’s Holy Written Word for me, as needing mediation , explaining by the Church, it would be different from my protestant experience of direct revelation from God ,to confirm what is truth. We both agree in oneness and unity

I am still having trouble understanding why there is separation for you. I also am not understanding the word “mediation” in this context. Are you saying that it is imperative for you to preserve your understanding of the text, especially when it departs from what has already been revealed to all the Christians that came before you?

.

The separation comes from straying from that.You say I stray (rebel) and I say your words stray.

I guess I don’t see a “straying” because there is no contradiction for me when I read the Scriptures. I don’t need for them to mean something different than what God has already revealed to the Church.

When you say my “words stray”, are you saying that people who read the Scripture according to the Teachings of the Apostles preserved in the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church they are “straying” or “rebelling” against God?

Reading is good ,but I am talking about how to read . Both faiths love to read scripture .But does one read to study scripture or to let scripture “study” you ?

I do both, don’t you? Learning the Greek opened up such a richness for me that I can never study enough. There is an academic type of reading, and a prayerful type of reading, - they compliment one another, don’t you think?

Do you read to confirm and be in accordance with a "church " , or do you read because you want to apprehend Him

There is no dichotomy between the two. The Church reveals Christ to us, enables us to apprehend Him. We do this through the sacramental life of the Church, which includes apprehending Him through His Holy Word.

You sound as if you don’t believe God can reveal Himself through His Church.

.Do you read as if it is God’s direct gift to you and the church , or do you read that it is God’s gift to the church to direct you.

Both.

Very subtle but big difference. So did the baptists teach to read ,and personally glean from His word ?

Yes, but they also read it with a bias. I don’t believe they know or are aware of the bias. I was not either until I went to seminary,a nd studied how all the denominations stared, and the theologies of the Reformers. Then I understood.

Did they say test all things by it , even what we preach from the pulpit or teach in the classroom ?

Yes. They espoused the Solas, and tried to force the Holy Writings into a role they were never meant to play (be the authority).

Did they say there are other things to read outside of scripture that are equal in authority ?

Never!

Did they say not everything needed is in the bible ?

Never!

Did they say you needed the baptist church to give you understanding ?

No, any “bible church” was considered acceptable to nurture one’s faith.

Did they say God so chose to reveal some things but only thru the baptists ?

To an extent. They believed their perception of the Scriptuers was the only correct one.

Did they cite baptist history as authoratative over any interpretation you might personally glean form scripture ?

No, I did not learn about Baptist history until I left to go away to school. They did not believe in reading or studying history. They did not even know where their Bible’s came from.

I hope you now understand this

No, I think I missed your point. Are you trying to compare Baptists with Catholics, in an effort to make me see how erroneous the Catholic ideas are?

.For sure you understood one church encouraging scripture reading more than another ,per your testimony.

No, actually, although that was my personal experience, I have since learned that what I was exposed to as a cultural Catholic is not consistent with the Teaching of the Church, which advocates daily scripture study and prayer.

And per my testimony the differences in attitude and understanding of the auhtority of scripture.

Authority is an activity that can only be exercised by persons, not by writings, however Holy. This is why Jesus left His Apostles in charge, and gave them His authority.

This is one of the major problems that was spawned during the Reformation. The Reformers felt they needed to jettison the corrupt clerics, along with their misuse of authority. They wanted a better more pure authority, which they decided was scripture. Unfortunately, this is a role that scripture is not intended to fuflill, so what ended up happening is that each person became their own authority, and each one believes he hears the HS.

. We both think we are “apostolic”. Yours from “historical succession” , and mine from " apostolic is as apostolic does" which is ageless.

You believe the Apostles would reject the authority appointed by Christ?

You believe the Apostles would separate the Holy Scriptures from the Teachings given them by Christ?

I think you are confusing the personal holiness of individuals (or lack therof) with the TEaching of the Church.

 

[david_ruiz]

But how do you determine what apostolic does? Before you pull out your Bible, know that there are 30,000+ Protestant denominations who all disagree with you about what that Bible actually says. How do you know that you’re right and they’re wrong?

Let’s make it really easy.

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 10:9[/BIBLEDRB]

So strike out all the denominations that allow man to separate what God has united.

Who’s left?

It’s up to 50,000.

 

[guanophore]

It’s up to 50,000.

How did God intend for the unity He desired to be preserved?

The fracturing occurred over the issue of authority,and it has been continuing ever since. If, indeed, there was no authority installed, what other method was to preserve the unity?

 

[david_ruiz]

so what ended up happening is that each person became their own authority, and each one believes he hears the HS.

 

[PRmerger]

guanophore;7415859:

I prefer “revelation” to “authority” .Nevertheless, how do you explain how millions around the world believe the same things,( even with 50,000 denominations ? ), without a central magisterium etc.?..get back to you on rest -good stuff,thanks

I would explain it by saying that if they agree with the Teaching of the Apostles, then they have submitted to the Truth; to the degree that they diverge from the Teaching of the Apostles, then they are wrong.

(What same things do these millions of Christians agree on, BTW?)

 

[guanophore]

I prefer “revelation” to “authority” .Nevertheless, how do you explain how millions around the world believe the same things,( even with 50,000 denominations ? ), without a central magisterium etc.?..get back to you on rest -good stuff,thanks

One of the problems with this is that the Church has always believed that there was no further public revelation after the death of the last Apostle. That is why, when certain modern individuals claim to have “revelation” from the scripture about something that is a significant departure from the Apostolic faith, it is blamed on the erroneous practice of “private interpretation”.

I do agree with you about the concept of revelation, but in this context, we are talking about the nature and extent of the authority Christ gave to the Church. Many believe that there is no ministerial priesthood, or unifying authority because the authority Christ gave to the Apostles died with them, or that he never really did give them the authority they believed he did (to forgive and retain sins).

There is a modern evangelical innovation to explain away the meaning of that scripture by attributing the meaning to the preaching of the gospel, through which sins are forgiven. This represents a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

Nevertheless, we are talking about the inspired and inerrant Word of God, so it stands to reason that no matter how splintered the believers may be, some of God’s revelation seeps through to everyone. All of our separated brethren hold Catholic faith, to the extent that they embrace the Apostolic Teachings from Scripture.

 

[david_ruiz]

One of the problems with this is that the Church has always believed that there was no further public revelation after the death of the last Apostle

. What is the problem with millions having the same "revelation " from God that Jesus is the Messiah ,their Savior etc.This is not public revelation.It is revelation form God to the individual believer. This revelation must be triggered or tied to nature, or scripture, or what a church or a preacher (some part of the Body) may be uttereing etc…I would prefer to say there has been no inspired scriptural revelation after the apostles.What does your church state ,do not understand "public’ revelation ?

That is why, when certain modern individuals claim to have “revelation” from the scripture about something that is a significant departure from the Apostolic faith, it is blamed on the erroneous practice of “private interpretation”.

See ,I have trouble with this because many of yours and our traditions started or evolved after the apostles, upon further revelation,and insight and need.For instance, I thought the pope had “revelation” that indeed there was an Immaculate Conception,beyond a shadow of a doubt , that is, infallibly so in, 1850…I would agree that erroneous interpretation /revelation is a departure from truth , from our foundation , the apostles and prophets . I believe we are both saying ,for example , dogma on priests being confessors should be judged upon our foundation as to it’s validity . If such dogma is not built on that foundation , it is fair and scriptural to say it is of private interpretation.

 

[david_ruiz]

I do agree with you about the concept of revelation,

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;7417160:

I would explain it by saying that if they agree with the Teaching of the Apostles, then they have submitted to the Truth; to the degree that they diverge from the Teaching of the Apostles, then they are wrong.

(What same things do these millions of Christians agree on, BTW?)

Thank-you .I understand your view , that all truth originally stems form Christs appointed Catholic church as pillar of truth …But that did not answer the question of how so many come to saving truth outside it’s magisterium . How is it that they read his Word and get saved ? How is it that some preacher’s words on the street corner or on late nite tv “quicken” him. You could say they read from a “Catholic” bible, but that came from 1800 years ago,and the specific one they read might be Catholic or it might be Guideon .How does His word Quicken , with no specific attachments to a denomination or Catholicism ? We are talking about the biggest miracle of all , one that the gates of hell can not prevail against ,consequences that will carry a soul and spirit on into eternity, forever and forever with the Lord. Could it be that the God of the universe acts outside the realm of Roman Catholicism or the Southern Baptists, as well partially, and sometimes totally with them ? Is His Church bigger than Catholicism and Orthodoxy and Protestantism ? If he has chosen Catholicism, then why does he Bless those that are opposed to you, and give them magisteriums and authority also ? Or are we not more equally united ,indeed universal in nature ?