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

[guanophore]

Probably the same way you think The Catholic Church is God’s only Church ?

I don’t think so, David. I will agree, that God does give me testimony in my heart that the Catholic Church is the one He founded, but the validation does not come from within myself as a private revelation. The way we know is that it bears the four marks of the Church as defined by the Apostles, and that the HS has preserved her, just as Jesus promised.

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.

Yes, I agree, but a person can fool themselves into believing they have these “proofs” of divine revelation, and be mistaken. When the early apologists made written defenses, they described the heretics as having these claims.

If a person only can bear testimony to themselves, then the testimony still needs to be validated from outside themselves. This is why Jesus set things up so that all private revelation would be submitted to the Church. The promises He made to lead the Church into all truth can protect those who submit their perceptions of private revelation to her. And so the saints have always done.

 

[david_ruiz]

This Modern American Fundamentalism of “just Jesus 'n me, nobody else, just us” is a myth.

 

[guanophore]

That is Catholic interpretation of this scripture .

Don’t you think the people that wrote it knew what they meant to communicate? Why would those who came along 1600 years later, separated from the One Faith, undersatnd better?

THis scripture was never mentioned to show head bishop till 3-4 th century.

I hope that you will continue to study your history with integrity, David. When you do that, it will become clear that Peter was always considered to be at the “head” of the Apostles. It would probably be better to address this in another thread, since it is not germaine to the authority Jesus gave to forgive sins.

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.

I think this has already been addressed by the Aramaic that precedes the Gk. text. We cannot change the meaning of the context when translating to another language. I agree, Cephas is Cephas, and it has nothing to do with male/female wording. Jesus made Peter into a rock, then built His church upon that Rock.

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 ,

The fact that Peter was considered Primary is all through the Scripture. If you are really willing to look at this, we should do it on another thread. Or, there may be an open one already. It is a common topic around here.

If you can’t see the scriptural evidence for successors to the Apostles then you are reading with big blinders on. Then there is the witness of history…

despite much talk of appointing deacons/bishops, but nothing on Peter’s appointment of a successor.

I don’t know if you realize this or not, but most of the NT was already written before he died. Then you have to set aside a great deal of early apostolic writings …grist for another thread.

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.

But what we all agree upon IS Catholic Tradition. And like all Catholic Tradition, it is the Truth. Why would God NOT expect you to hold to the Truth?

 

[guanophore]

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

Yes, original sin is fact, sin. But the guilt of it is not ours. Just the condition.

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

If there were a reason to believe something, what might suffice?

 

[rinnie]

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.

What exactly is Catholic interpretation of this scripture? So would you say that the Early Fathers of the Church were Protestant then, and protested the teaching that they taught??

Tell me david what other teaching besides the CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION was there back in the time of Christ and where is you proof?

Let me put this another way, a more clearer way. Show me where the Catholic interpretation of scripture as you state it, disagrees with any interpretation of the Apostolic Fathers of the early church.

Now you made another statement that I do not understand and maybe you could make clearer. Where in the bible did God hold me liable to hold fast to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and but then not also hold you to it??

 

[jlhargus]

Agreed ,I do not know history well enough ,at least not enough to have that info forefront in my mind. I can not show you where some were killed over the debate in 1870. Who said it happened in 1870 ? I did not .If I recall it was centuries ago. According to you ,Catholic history is very, very long (2000 years ), so we must be careful to search it all or to say such a thing could never happen . As C.S. Lewis said, “Those ignorant of history, are slaves to the recent past.” 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.

JL: Now you’re doing a song and dance routine. I don’t care when it HAPPENED post EVIDENCE or don’t make statements you can’t back up. You were talking about the doctrine of infallibility and when it was defined, that was 1870. You said some were killed because of a bitter debate over infallibility, which is FALSE. You need to go to a library and research, instead of passing on FASLE history, spoon fed to you. You hide your own faith group, while spreading FASLE information and being disrespectful of the Catholic faith. The forum rules #7 Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board. Your FALSE statement DISRESPECTFUL and your remarks dishonest and cowardly. Tell me the name of your faith group so I can research it’s history. You wont of course because you don’t want to defend your faith group, which I would guess only goes back fifty years.

While I am not an expert I certainly am not ingnorant of Church history, good and bad, along with world history. I reed history to relax, I have read Catholic and non-Catholic historians. I have also heard and read most of the Chick history non-sense you have been spoon fed. You should take to heart what C.S. Lewis is saying to you and educate yourself, checking facts, intead of spreading FASLEHOODS. I have a saying also, a statement made WITHOUT EVIDENCE is evidence the statement is FALSE. You are unable to provide evidence because YOUR STATEMENT IS FALSE.

 

[david_ruiz]

JL: Now you’re doing a song and dance routine. I don’t care when it HAPPENED post EVIDENCE or don’t make statements you can’t back up. You were talking about the doctrine of infallibility and when it was defined, that was 1870. You said some were killed because of a bitter debate over infallibility, which is FALSE. You need to go to a library and research, instead of passing on FASLE history, spoon fed to you. You hide your own faith group, while spreading FASLE information and being disrespectful of the Catholic faith. The forum rules #7 Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board. Your FALSE statement DISRESPECTFUL and your remarks dishonest and cowardly. Tell me the name of your faith group so I can research it’s history. You wont of course because you don’t want to defend your faith group, which I would guess only goes back fifty years.

While I am not an expert I certainly am not ingnorant of Church history, good and bad, along with world history. I reed history to relax, I have read Catholic and non-Catholic historians. I have also heard and read most of the Chick history non-sense you have been spoon fed. You should take to heart what C.S. Lewis is saying to you and educate yourself, checking facts, intead of spreading FASLEHOODS. I have a saying also, a statement made WITHOUT EVIDENCE is evidence the statement is FALSE. You are unable to provide evidence because YOUR STATEMENT IS FALSE.

Yes, recanted twice earlier ,perhaps you didn’t catch it,sorry .

 

[jlhargus]

jlhargus;7428558:

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

JL: Thanks, that restores my resect for you. I posted the above before reading this post.

 

[jlhargus]

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.

JL: That still doesn’t answer how you know when God’s Spirit is bearing witness with your spirit. If you were correct why are there thousands of contenious faith groups claiming the same Spirit bearing witness with their spirit, USING the same scriptures, yet can’t agree? The Holy Spirit does not SCATER HE GATHERS THE PEOPLE OF GOD INTO ONE BODY.

God SENT ONE FELLOWSHIP to PROCLAIM and TEACH the gospel TRUTH till the END, Mt28:16-20. [1Cor 1:9 God is faithful you were called into THE FELLOWSHIP OF his Son JESUS CHRIST 10 I appeal to you BREATHREN by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you AGREE that there be no dissensions among you that you BE UNITED in the same mind and THE SAME JUDGMENT. 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO **US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR ]

1Jn2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 THEY WENT OUT FROM US, but they were not of **US]/b]; for if they had been of US, they would no doubt have continued with US: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of US 20 But YE HAVE AN UNCTION FROM THE HOLY ONE, and YE KNOW ALL THINGS. 21 I HAVE NOT WRITTEN unto you BECAUSE YE KNOW NOT THE TRUTH, but because YE KNOW IT, and that no lie is of the truth. 22 … 23… 24 LET THAT therefore ABIDE IN YOU, WHICH YE HAVE HEARD FROM THE BEGINNING. IF THAT WHICH YE HAVE HEARD FROM THE BEGINNING shall REMAIN IN YOU, YE also SHALL CONTINUE IN THE SON, AND in the FATHER. 25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, EVEN ETERNAL LIFE. 26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But THE ANOINTING which YE HAVE RECEIVED OF HIM ABIDETH IN YOU, and YE NEED NOT that ANY MAN TEACH YOU: but as the same ANOINTING TEACHETH YOU ALL THINGS, AND IS TRUTH, and is no lie, and EVEN AS IT HATH TAUGHT YOU, YE SHALL ABIDE IN HIM.

THE ANOINTING (UNCTION) YE HAVE RECEIVED OF HIM=that is grace. Knowledge and wisdom from the Holy Spirit, the seven gifts, received thru the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. Who gives us the wisdom, for THAT TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL TO ABIDE IN US, WHICH WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE BEGINNING. Note, not what we have read and formed our own opinion. In other words the gospel as preached by the SENT Apostolic Fellowship, the Church the pillar and ground of truth, 1Tm3:15. That which we have HEARD from the beginning, if we allow it to abide in our hearts we know the truth and will not be deceived, by those teaching another gospel. The (UNCTION) ANOINTING TEACHETH YOU ALL THINGS. The anointing teaches those of the Household of God to remain faithful to the word, that abideth in them, that which they have RECEIVED FROM THE BEGINNING, as proclaimed in the Church by those SENT to proclaim the gospel. In unity with them we share in the Holy Spirit promised to lead the Church into all truth, Jn16:13. We have the knowledge necessary not to be deceived and led astray by every wind of doctrine the mind of man can devise, those NOT SENT. They are not SENT, but go out on their own authority, teaching another gospel of their own design.

[Eph3:7 Whereof I was made A MINISTER, ACCORDING TO THE GIFT of the grace of God given unto me BY the effectual working OF HIS POWER. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And TO MAKE ALL MEN SEE what is THE FELLOWHIP of THE MYSTERY, which from the beginning of the world hath been HID IN GOD, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent THAT NOW unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places MIGHT BE KNOWN BY THE CHURCH THE MANIFOLD WISDOM OF GOD,]

[2Cor5:20 Now then **WE are ambassadors for Christ, as though GOD did BESEECH YOU BY US: WE pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.]

[Mk 9:38 And **JOHN answered him, SAYING, MASTER, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and HE FOLLOWETH NOT US: and WE FORBAD HIM, because HE FOLLOWETH NOT US. 39 But JESUS SAID, FORBID HIM NOT: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against US is on OUR PART.] Christ established, and SENT one VISIBLE FELLOWSHIP to TEACH the whole world till the END, promising to be WITH THEM ALWAYS. The Holy Spirit works thru those separated brethren, who remain outside that ONE VISIBLE Apostlic Fellowship, thru no fault of there own. Uniting them in a spiritual way to His ONE BODY THE CHURCH

 

[david_ruiz]

JL: That still doesn’t answer how you know when God’s Spirit is bearing witness with your spirit.

If you were correct why are there thousands of contenious faith groups claiming the same Spirit bearing witness with their spirit, USING the same scriptures, yet can’t agree? The Holy Spirit does not SCATER HE GATHERS THE PEOPLE OF GOD INTO ONE BOD

 

[david_ruiz]

What exactly is Catholic interpretation of this scripture?

So would you say that the Early Fathers of the Church were Protestant then, and protested the teaching that they taught??

[/QUOTE]

 

[david_ruiz]

u made another statement that I do not understand and maybe you could make clearer. Where in the bible did God hold me liable to hold fast to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and but then not also hold you to it??

Scripture yes ,but tradition no .By it’s very nature, tradition is meant to be flexlble (say ,as what date to celebrate Easter. But if you mean "tradition ’ as Paul meant it, like to follow his “teachings”, we are both bound .Except that I do not believe it is much different than what we find in scripture already . When I feel not bound to a particular Catholic Tradition , it is because i think of it as flexible tradition ,free for anyone to believe if they chose ,but not binding, because it does not line up with Paul’s meaning of tradition , which bears the equivalence to scripture.

 

[joe370]

David, Ambrose, a catholic bishop of Milan, in the 4th century, wrote: Sins are forgiven through the Holy Ghost. Certainly, but men lend him their ministry. . . . They forgive sin, not in their own name, but in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Was he wrong to make such a claim?

Scripture yes ,but tradition no .By it’s very nature, tradition is meant to be flexlble (say ,as what date to celebrate Easter. But if you mean "tradition ’ as Paul meant it, like to follow his “teachings”, we are both bound .Except that I do not believe it is much different than what we find in scripture already . When I feel not bound to a particular Catholic Tradition , it is because i think of it as flexible tradition ,free for anyone to believe if they chose ,but not binding, because it does not line up with Paul’s meaning of tradition , which bears the equivalence to scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

Scripture yes ,but tradition no .By it’s very nature, tradition is meant to be flexlble (say ,as what date to celebrate Easter.

But, david, you are making a beginner’s mistake here. The date to celebrate Easter is a custom, not part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

You are confusing customs or traditions with Sacred Tradition.

 

[david_ruiz]

Don’t you think the people that wrote it knew what they meant to communicate?

Why would those who came along 1600 years later, separated from the One Faith, undersatnd better?

 

[david_ruiz]

But, david, you are making a beginner’s mistake here. The date to celebrate Easter is a custom, not part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

You are confusing customs or traditions with Sacred Tradition.

Yes of course ,but tell that to those who were threatened with excommunication if they did no comply with Rome on this,at least in Rome (Pope Victor). Still , why try to enforce customs, is that where our unity lies ? Well, then how about the Immaculate Conception ,a custom practiced or venerated differently ,and at different times,which then became required dogma.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes of course ,but tell that to those who were threatened with excommunication if they did no comply with Rome on this,at least in Rome (Pope Victor).

I did look this up as I was unfamiliar with this.

newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm

Victor, who acted throughout the entire matter as the head of Catholic Christendom, now called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the universally prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church

.

However, thanks to the leadership of the pope, it continues…

All that is known is that in the course of the third century the Roman practice in the observance of Easter became gradually universal.

What I see is that there was a pope, first of all, to make a final decision. And it seems that you are following his custom (not Tradition) when you celebrate Easter on a Sunday.

Still , why try to enforce customs, is that where our unity lies ?

Because without the pope’s affirmation that Easter ought to be celebrated on a Sunday we would have chaos and confusion–maybe to the tune of 30,000 different interpretations of when Easter should be celebrated. On Good Friday would say one. No, on the first rain! would say another. No! It should be celebrated in the Summer says another.

Well, then how about the Immaculate Conception ,a custom practiced or venerated differently ,and at different times,which then became required dogma.

No, the IC is not a custom or tradition, but was taught from the very beginning as part of the Deposit of Faith.

 

[david_ruiz]

I don’t think so, David. I will agree, that God does give me testimony in my heart that the Catholic Church is the one He founded, but the validation does not come from within myself as a private revelation. The way we know is that it bears the four marks of the Church as defined by the Apostles, and that the HS has preserved her, just as Jesus promised.

 

[Cat_Herder]

. Yes, He leads the Church , His Body , you and me, into all truth by divine revelation as to what is Scripture and it’s meaning, and what really is apostolic tradition.Revelations and the seven letters from Jesus is evidence of this and His method .

My Church says abortion is murder. The church down the street says it is not. Who is right and why?

 

[david_ruiz]

However, thanks to the leadership of the pope, it continues…

Thanks for the confirmation .The article had a lot of Eusebius notes as does my source (Lives of Popes). However , it says, “Victor excommunicated not the Asian Churches but simply the Asian parishes (immigrants) in Rome itself, in which the case the significance of the episode in terms of the power of the Roman See diminishes still further.”

Because without the pope’s affirmation that Easter ought to be celebrated on a Sunday we would have chaos and confusion–maybe to the tune of 30,000 different interpretations of when Easter should be celebrated.

You exaggerate .there were I believe only two dates,and that would spread to 30,000 ? , and presumably one was Apostolic’ , that is, started during the apostles leadership and presence. Wouldn’t that be something, to eradicate an apostolic custom.

No, the IC is not a custom or tradition, but was taught from the very beginning as part of the Deposit of Faith.

There are no deposits of faith that are from Tradition ? Jesus never taught IC to apostles. No evidence that apostles taught it .It certainly was not official Catholic Dogma till 1854. For lack of better words , I classify I.C. as a “tradition” turned dogma, and with many centuries old customs celebrating it.