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

[david_ruiz]

I

As it turned out, it was very important that He be carried in perfection. This is because, when heresies arose about His nature, it became necessary to emphasize that he was “born of the virgin” having taken His flesh from hers. He cleansed her, so that she would be just like Eve, the mother of all living. Eve was created without sin and chose to sin. Mary was created without sin and chose to obey. That is why her obedience is extolled by our Lord even more than her motherhood, by which she was also blessed.

 

[david_ruiz]

?? Who are you saying became dust? And who is a real fallen Mary??

Hopefully I am misunderstanding all you have written. Jesus did not become dust, He entered heaven True Man and True God. God from God, light from light, True God from True God.

The Blessed Mother was never turned to dust. She was taken straight up to heaven body and soul.

“dust” is symbolic for "earthly elements " you know, carbon atoms etc…Sorry , Jesus , Mary, and you, and me are from “dust” as far as our bodies are concerned.

 

[david_ruiz]

I knew I would win my bet. It is my history of which you make a FALSE statement. Most people don’t know history, including YOU, to challenge a false statement. Well, WAS it the Dominicans & Augustinians, its your STROY, or was it one of your revelations from God. Yes there was DEBATE but show me were some were KILLED in 1870 when Vatican Council I defined Infallibility, you wont because you can’t, it’s FALSE?

 

[PRmerger]

No. I was challenged to my paradigm thread 728 ,conceded it was man-made , and not scriptural ,and finally reiterated what was scriptural .I am totally within my paradigm, in thread #737 thank-you.

This post does not make sense. You are conceding that you have a man-made tradition?

I understand your independence (from my viewpoint) from scripture on this issue (as St Augustine conceded to tradition also-that this is not in scripture ,actually contrary),and reliance on Catholic tradition.

You have reliance on tradition as well, then?

 

[PRmerger]

Just because it would seem extraordinary that monks /friars /holy orders would fight amongst themselves today or yesterday, does not mean it could not happen 500 years ago.

Firstly, “holy orders” is a sacrament. It is what priests receive when they are ordained.

The term you mean is “religious orders”.

Secondly, are you going to rescind your comment that you made below that there was a fight “to the death” among religious orders about this issue?

If not, please provide your source of who killed whom over this issue.

I recall bitter debate over some of this , to the death ,amongst several Holy Orders.

 

[Augsburg1530]

Fair enough.

So where is your non-Catholic source to back up your statement?

Which statement, PR?

 

[PRmerger]

Which statement, PR?

This one:

(Origen, Basil, and Chrysostom spring to mind… the fact that they believed she sinned would automatically mean they didn’t believe she was conceived without sin.)

(Incidentally, Adam and Eve sinned but also had no Original Sin, yes?)

 

[Augsburg1530]

This one:

Well, I didn’t use a particular source aside from New Advent. Since the quotes regarding those patristics are quotes whether they are from a Catholic or Protestant source.

(Incidentally, Adam and Eve sinned but also had no Original Sin, yes?)

That is true, however, the situation is vastly different. We live in a post-lapsarian world wherein our actual sin originates with our inherited guilt from Adam. Scripture describes the circumstances under which Adam and Eve transgressed. To say Mary did not possess a sin nature yet she actually committed sin would be wild speculation which Scripture doesn’t address at all.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I didn’t use a particular source aside from New Advent. Since the quotes regarding those patristics are quotes whether they are from a Catholic or Protestant source.

Ok. But those quotes you provided me say that those writers were in error.

It seems peculiar to quote a source to support your argument that actually contradicts your argument.

That is true, however, the situation is vastly different. We live in a post-lapsarian world wherein our actual sin originates with our inherited guilt from Adam. Scripture describes the circumstances under which Adam and Eve transgressed.

Ok. We are agreed (although lapsarian would not be my choice of words.)

To say Mary did not possess a sin nature yet she actually committed sin would be wild speculation which Scripture doesn’t address at all.

Indeed! It *would *be speculative to say that someone who had no sin nature would commit a sin!

Which is why the Catholic position makes sense.

 

[Augsburg1530]

Ok. But those quotes you provided me say that those writers were in error.

It seems peculiar to quote a source to support your argument that actually contradicts your argument.

Strictly speaking, I didn’t state whether I agreed with Origen, Chrysostom, or Basil. Only that they held the opinion that Mary was a sinner.

Ok. We are agreed (although lapsarian would not be my choice of words.)

You have to admit, though, typing fancy always sounds better!

Indeed! It *would *be speculative to say that someone who had no sin nature would commit a sin!

Which is why the Catholic position makes sense.

If you operate under the belief that Mary never sinned, then yes, it would make sense that she was conceived without original sin.

 

[PRmerger]

You have to admit, though, typing fancy always sounds better!

I tend to eschew euphuism.

 

[guanophore]

. We live in a post-lapsarian world wherein our actual sin originates with our inherited guilt from Adam.

It is true that we live after the Fall, but the Apostles taught that we did not inherit the sin of Adam - just the consequence of it, which is a sin nature - concupiscence by my Latin brethren, which is not a form of guilt, but a tendency against God. The fallen nature is not a sin, in and of itself, but a consequence of sin.

To say Mary did not possess a sin nature yet she actually committed sin would be wild speculation which Scripture doesn’t address at all.

Why is that such wild speculation? If Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature, yet fell into sin, why is it so hard to believe?

I think some of the doubts about Mary’s sinlessness are based on an inadequate concept of God’s grace and His purpose in triumph over sin. It is possible to to live free from sin, and we are all expected to do so. His grace is sufficient for this.

 

[david_ruiz]

Firstly, “holy orders” is a sacrament. It is what priests receive when they are ordained.

The term you mean is “religious orders”.

Secondly, are you going to rescind your comment that you made below that there was a fight “to the death” among religious orders about this issue?

If not, please provide your source of who killed whom over this issue.

Yes ,thank-you for correction on religious orders/holy orders. Yes, rescind statement on fight to death. I misread an old article on Franciscans and Dominicans who argued bitterly, but not to death. Can not verify articles claim of bloodshed on this issue by non-clergy. Very Sorry.Totally rescind.

 

[david_ruiz]

I knew I would win my bet. It is my history of which you make a FALSE statement. Most people don’t know history, including YOU, to challenge a false statement. Well, WAS it the Dominicans & Augustinians, its your STROY, or was it one of your revelations from God. Yes there was DEBATE but show me were some were KILLED in 1870 when Vatican Council I defined Infallibility, you wont because you can’t, it’s FALSE?

 

[PRmerger]

YOu win .Totally rescind statement on Religious orders dying at each others hands over IC.isue .Sorry

:tiphat:

And thank you for using the correct phrase: religious orders, not holy orders.

 

[david_ruiz]

By the way you didn’t answer my post, how do you KNOW when you receive one of YOUR revelations, it’s from God .

Probably the same way you think The Catholic Church is God’s only Church ? Actually ,our answers should be His spirit bears witness to our spirit ,on the truth of anything.It requires two things I think -one- you must be regenerated in spirit ,born again (else how would God, a spirit , talk and “sup” with us, if we were not spirit also ).Second, one must believe He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him,that he does want us to have assurance ,“that ye may know”, as St. John says a bunch of times in his epistles, an “unction from the Holy Spirit”. Good question .Of course another simple answer is that it must not contradict scripture ,it must be in harmony with it.

 

[david_ruiz]

I totally agree, it is what Jesus said that counts.

Here it is once again.

Who do you say I am? SImon answered You are the Messiah the son of the Living God. Good for you Simon son of John answered Jesus! For this truth did not come to you form any human being, but it was give to YOU directly by MY FATHER.in heaven.

Here it comes david loud and clear. And so I tell YOU PETER, you are a ROCK, and on this ROCK foundation I will build my CHURCH and not even DEATH will ever be able to overcome it. I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven, what YOU prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.

Now with that said what did PETER do? Did he appoint a Supreme Bishop? Yes he did. We call him the Holy Father, the Pope. He still exists today, He is still our leader.

Now what did Jesus say? Did he or did he not tell Peter he had his permission to run the Church or not? Did Peter or did he not appoint a Bishop to take his place? A right that was truly given to him by God may I add.

That is Catholic interpretation of this scripture .THis scripture was never mentioned to show head bishop till 3-4 th century.The cannonized Greek has petras and petros ,or something .It does not have Rock and Rock ,and may not have anything to do with male /feminine wording. Even if one concedes that Peter was appointed leader , of the apostles , it says nothing of succession, nor is there any scriptural evidence of a successor , despite much talk of appointing deacons/bishops, but nothing on Peter’s appointment of a successor. This was Tertullians argument. Hence ,not a Protestant / Catholic argument-not to mention Orthodoxy. WE all agree ,that the apostles are the foundation of the church ,as revelations says.We all agree that Peter indeed was a leader.You say head leader ,others say first among equals. We both have scriptural ,historical evidence …What you have that I do not is Tradition , Catholic tradition, something I don’t believe God holds me to.

 

[guanophore]

Yes ,thank-you for correction on religious orders/holy orders. Yes, rescind statement on fight to death. I misread an old article on Franciscans and Dominicans who argued bitterly, but not to death. Can not verify articles claim of bloodshed on this issue by non-clergy. Very Sorry.Totally rescind.

Well David, God bless you for your integrity.

(and doing your research)

 

[Augsburg1530]

It is true that we live after the Fall, but the Apostles taught that we did not inherit the sin of Adam - just the consequence of it, which is a sin nature - concupiscence by my Latin brethren, which is not a form of guilt, but a tendency against God. The fallen nature is not a sin, in and of itself, but a consequence of sin.

I agree that we inherit the consequence of it. But I would disagree that original sin is not, in fact, sin.

Why is that such wild speculation? If Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature, yet fell into sin, why is it so hard to believe?

I don’t find it hard to believe, anymore than any other teaching; I just have no reason to believe it.

 

[david_ruiz]

This post does not make sense. You are conceding that you have a man-made tradition?
In 728 said “by grace,not perfection,He came into Mary”. You challenged me that this is man made.Tongue in-cheek I agreed and said I just made that up, hence it is man- made for nowhere in scripture are those exact words to be found (though in truth I feel it is). I then kept it scriptural and said "by grace Mary…conceived " .I concede to have made a man-made statement , not that I have a man-made idea or tradition.I rescinded my man-made statement,and reiterated scripture

You have reliance on tradition as well, then?