Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BereanRuss
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So you see, Russ. We have a disagreement here between you and Ralphy. It seems that Ralphy understood that the Apostles had the authority to forgive sins, but that authority died with them.
How did those who heard Jesus know that He was right and the religious leaders were wrong?

What you do not understand is that my salvation and Ralph’s salvation is NOT dependant upon our correct understanding of every scripture. Salvation is only by trusting in the finished work of Jesus on the cross. God will correct my understanding of His word as HE sees fit and in HIS timing.

Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. [Rom 14:4]

Ralph is not my servant nor is he yours. Ralph is God’s servant and God is able to make him stand.
 
Russ equates from John 20:21-23 that forgiving sin means preaching the gospel and someone accepting it versus retaining sin which is someone not accepting the gospel?
Show me from the book of Acts your version of retaining sins and I will believe it. Many, many people were forgiven of their sins in the book of acts so you should have no problems finding plenty of examples of confession to a priest.

In the Bible, sins were forgiven publically, not privately. This is true for John the Baptist, Jesus and the Apostles. How did John forgive and retain sins seeing he is not a priest?

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
 
What you do not understand is that my salvation and Ralph’s salvation is NOT dependant upon our correct understanding of every scripture.
I guess I need to know WHICH parts of scripture I MUST understand to be saved???
I’d think the gospel would be part of that.

By your understanding of John 20:21-23 (the GOSPEL), if someone rejects the GOSPEL, their sins are retained … between you and Ralphy, one of you doesn’t understand that same GOSPEL and cannot be declared forgiven.

Which of you is it?

michel
 
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Are you STILL equating the Catholic priesthood with the Pharisees and Sadducees?
:banghead:

Those who have hears ought to hear.

michel
 
Because it is JESUS that gave us the church.
The church that Jesus gave does not have an earthly priesthood because it does not need an earthly priesthood. All believers have equal access to the throne of Grace. If you are attempting to come another way, you are not of His church.
I guess I need to know WHICH parts of scripture I MUST understand to be saved???
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

This is the truth that saves a man. Any truth beyond this cannot save anyone.
We are told to confess our sins.
Doesn’t it make sense to confess them to someone that can forgive them?

michel
Jesus is the only one who can forgive sin. Try confessing to Him.
 
Without authority, Christians read Scripture and interpret it in their own way, leaving us with millions upon millions of ideas of what it means to be “saved”. Why would Jesus leave His followers in the state of anarchy? 🤷
 
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” …After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Scipture testifies that they were His disciples.
Ok, I agree with you. They were His disciples. See that was not so hard. Show me what you believe from the Bible and I will agree with you.

So then, your point is that those who do not receive communion in the CC cannot be saved because they do not eat the flesh of Jesus. Was that your point?
 
Without authority, Christians read Scripture and interpret it in their own way, leaving us with millions upon millions of ideas of what it means to be “saved”. Why would Jesus leave His followers in the state of anarchy?
You don’t mind if I ask you a question, do you? If you were alive at the time of Christ and you heard Him say, “…repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”, would you believe Him and repent or would you ignore Him?

By who’s authority would you believe Him?
 
You don’t mind if I ask you a question, do you? If you were alive at the time of Christ and you heard Him say, “…repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”, would you believe Him and repent or would you ignore Him?

By who’s authority would you believe Him?
Using the hindsight of what I have learned from the Catholic Church, of course I would listen to Him, but at the time of Christ, not knowing Him, I would like to think I would, but I couldn’t say absolutly for sure I would. Noone can say for sure they could. Fortunatly we don’t have that dilemma, since we all know of Jesus.

Of course, it is by His authority that I believe Him. It is also by Jesus authority that He chose Peter (and Peter’s successors) to shepherd His Church.
 
Does the believer have direct access to the throne of grace for the forgiveness of sin?

For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. [Heb 4:15, 16]

If the believer now has access to God’s throne of grace and is commanded to come boldly, why not take God at His word? Why go through an earthly priest when you have authority to boldly go to Jesus Himself?
You are creating a false dichotomy. The priest acts in the Person of Christ. He is just an avenue through which we approach the throne of Grace with boldness.
Code:
Show me from the book of Acts your version of retaining sins and I will believe it.  Many, many people were forgiven of their sins in the book of acts so you should have no problems finding plenty of examples of confession to a priest.
Most of the book of Acts is about the initial preaching of the gospel. Confession is for post baptismal sins. The best example of retention of sin is Ananias and Sapphira. They were baptized members of the community who sinned against the HS and the Church.

This passage is about post-baptismal sin:

2 Cor 2:5-11

5 But if any one has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure -not to put it too severely - to you all. 6 For such a one this punishment by the majority is enough; 7 so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. 9 For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. 10 Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, 11 to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

Paul is writing about someone who was being ostracized for sinning against the Church. It may be that this individual was excommunicated, which is what caused him to be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. This is the main purpose of exocommunication. Paul instructs the Church to receive him back, since he has repeneted of his sin. He reassures the community that, if they have forgiven the offender, then he does also. The priest forgives sin for the sake of the Church, in the presence of Christ. The priest acts in the person of Christ, to prevent the devil from taking advantage of peoples sins.
In the Bible, sins were forgiven publically, not privately. This is true for John the Baptist, Jesus and the Apostles.
Well, we have public examples. We don’t know how many may have confessed their sins privately to the Apostles and those He appointed. However, the history of the early church demonstrates that you are correct. Confession was public. It was not until the Church realized that public confession could cause more harm than good that private confessions were implemented.
How did John forgive and retain sins seeing he is not a priest? But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
John was from the priestly line. In fact, His father was acting as High priest the year he was conceived. His birth was announced to his father inside the Holy of Holies, remember? In any case, God ordained him to that ministry, so even if he had not been of a priestly line, he was authorized by God.

Do you think it might be harmful to confess your sins to an elder?
The church that Jesus gave does not have an earthly priesthood because it does not need an earthly priesthood. All believers have equal access to the throne of Grace. If you are attempting to come another way, you are not of His church.
I do not understand what you mean by “earthly priesthood”. It seems to me that the function of the presybters is primarily spiritual, not “earthly”. I will not rule out the corporate works of mercy, which are largely “earthly” in the sense that they address temporal physical needs, but the primary duties of the presbyters are all spiritual.

1 Tim 5:17-19

17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching; 18 for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

The Apostles is clear that the primary duty of the presbyter is to teach and preach. ARe these “earthly” duties?

The elders “rule” and are worthy of “double honor” if they rule well. They labor for the gospel, and are supported by the Church. In this way, their lifestyle is similar to that of the Levitical priesthood, who were supported by all the other tribes of Israel, so that they could be free to conduct their responsibilities to God and to the nation.
40.png
BereanRuss:
Jesus is the only one who can forgive sin. Try confessing to Him.
In saying this, you are siding with those who spoke detractions against Christ, and are denying the gospel message.

Matt 9:1-8
9:1 And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. 2 And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” 4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6 But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” - he then said to the paralytic - “Rise, take up your bed and go home.” 7 And he rose and went home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and **they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
**

You are thinking evil in your heart, and are failing to give glory to God, who has given this authority to men.

The authority of the priest to forgive sin comes from Christ. The fact that he has given this authority to men does not subtract from His authority.

John 20:22-23
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

The breath of Christ, the power of the HS, is what empowers men to forgive sins in His name.

Why is this a problem?
 
Ok, I agree with you. They were His disciples. See that was not so hard. Show me what you believe from the Bible and I will agree with you.

So then, your point is that those who do not receive communion in the CC cannot be saved because they do not eat the flesh of Jesus. Was that your point?
No, Jesus is able to save whomever He wants, however He likes. He gave this commandment to His disciples. As His disciples, it is our responsiblity to receive it in faith,and to practice His commandment, even if we do not understand it, or it seems to defy reason. The Apostles did not understand it either, until they were in the upper room, yet they accepted His “hard saying” in faith, because they knew only He had the “words of eternal life”.

John 12:16

16 His disciples did not understand this at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered

There were many things that they did not understand right away, but they became clear over time.

John 16:3-4
4 But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you of them.

Jesus knew it would take some time for all of it to sink in.
 
Using the hindsight of what I have learned from the Catholic Church, of course I would listen to Him, but at the time of Christ, not knowing Him, I would like to think I would, but I couldn’t say absolutly for sure I would. Noone can say for sure they could. Fortunatly we don’t have that dilemma, since we all know of Jesus.

Of course, it is by His authority that I believe Him. It is also by Jesus authority that He chose Peter (and Peter’s successors) to shepherd His Church.
Pete,

Thank you for a thoughtful, reasonable answer. My point is that in order for you to have believed Jesus when He came, you would have to make the decision for yourself based upon what you understood the scriptures to say. If you simply listen to the instruction of the religious leaders at the time of Christ, you would have rejected Him just as they did.

God holds us accountable to know and understand His word. We must apply what we understand to be the truth to our lives and continue to grow and trust that God will correct us if we do not understand Him clearly.

Both Protestants and Catholics are studying God’s word for one purpose – to know Him and the truth that sets us free.
 
Thank you for a thoughtful, reasonable answer. My point is that in order for you to have believed Jesus when He came, you would have to make the decision for yourself based upon what you understood the scriptures to say. If you simply listen to the instruction of the religious leaders at the time of Christ, you would have rejected Him just as they did.
Russ are you implying that the OT is a Christian’s sufficient rule of faith? Because there was no NT during the time of Jesus. I of course know you know this, but this comment here seems to make it sound like all we need is the Bible (or the OT to be more precise), since you believe all we could have gone off of during the time of Jesus are the Scriptures. However I think this is proving too much. You are essentially saying all we need is the OT scriptures.

God bless
 
Russ, you said:
Jesus is the only one who can forgive sin. Try confessing to Him.

I do ask Jesus to forgive me of my sins, and He never absolves me; if He did, He failed to audibly mention it! You mean Jesus and His sinful, fallible Apostles, who were sent out, starting in Jerusalem, and eventually to the ends of the earth, to teach and preach all that Jesus commanded, can forgive sins --right?

Did Jesus stop sending them once the last Apostle died? Perhaps there was a reason why Jesus breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; perhaps there was/is a connection between the H.S. and the retaining or remitting of sins? Perhaps Jesus’ Apostolic Church, once they received the Holy Ghost, were inspired by God to retain or remit, as well as teach, correct, and train in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent and equipped for every good work, and prepare the one who belongs to God, for the reception of the Holy Eucharist??? That’s how it was done for the 1st 300 years of Christianity.

Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

From the documents of the early church, we learn that the Church of the first two centuries had a definite governing structure, consisting of four principle offices: the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons, and the laity. The Church worshiped according to a pattern based upon types set forth in the Old Testament. Furthermore, both Church government and worship were firmly rooted in the doctrine of the Incarnation; that is, in the belief that God had truly become man so that man might be able to truly share in the life of God, and the celebration of the Eucharist.

The Church is first and foremost a worshipping community, gathered around the Table of Her Lord. Thus, it is precisely the Eucharistic nature of the Church that defines the structure of the Church’s ministry. John Meyendorff writes:

It was in the Eucharistic meal and through it that the Church was truly herself, the Church of God and it is, therefore, within the framework of the Eucharistic assembly, gathered every week on the Lord’s Day, that the internal structure of the Church had to take its shape. Indeed, if the Eucharist was a reenactment of the Last Supper, someone had to sit in the place of the Lord and pronounce the words He commanded His disciples to say. On the other hand, the Eucharist was also a participation in the forthcoming Messianic banquet of the Kingdom as it was seen by the author of Revelation: "a throne stood in heaven, with One seated on the throne . . . Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders [presbyteroi] . . . (4:2,4).

St. Ignatios also speaks of the place of the bishop in the Church in terms of the Eucharist:

Take great care to keep one Eucharist. For there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup to unite us by His Blood; one sanctuary, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow-servants. Thus all your acts may be done accordingly to God’s will (Philadelphians 4).

This is just the tip of the iceberg; Scott Hahn, wanting to incorporate the form of worship done in the early church, in his protestant church, was actually converted to the Catholic faith, because of its resemblance to the present day C.C. Why don’t you see for yourself; what can it hurt?
 
I have answered this three or four times now. Forgiveness is always related to the preaching of the Gospel. When a person places their faith in Christ, their sin is forgiven but when a person rejects the message of the gospel, their sin remains.

…if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
Ohhh! Thank you, Russ! I understand now.

But, that’s not my understanding of John 20:23. And I’m pretty sure that this is not the way thousands of other Bible Christian churches interpret it, either. Is this something that Christians are allowed to agree to disagree?
 
Does the believer have direct access to the throne of grace for the forgiveness of sin?

For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. [Heb 4:15, 16]

If the believer now has access to God’s throne of grace and is commanded to come boldly, why not take God at His word? Why go through an earthly priest when you have authority to boldly go to Jesus Himself?
You answer this? I’ve asked you other questions, regarding the point of the thread, repeatedly, and you jump on this?
 
How did those who heard Jesus know that He was right and the religious leaders were wrong?

What you do not understand is that my salvation and Ralph’s salvation is NOT dependant upon our correct understanding of every scripture. Salvation is only by trusting in the finished work of Jesus on the cross. God will correct my understanding of His word as HE sees fit and in HIS timing.

Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. [Rom 14:4]

Ralph is not my servant nor is he yours. Ralph is God’s servant and God is able to make him stand.
So, evidently, this is your way of saying Ralph is wrong, but God props him up anyway.

The point of comparing your interpretation to Ralphy was to show you how Sola Scriptura does not lead everyone to the same truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top