Do Fundamentalist believe in doing penance?

[cooterhein]

You seem like a very bright person and I am about the biggest knucklehead you will ever run across. Does whatever translation of whatever bible you read have this interaction between Jesus and Peter in it? All I want to know is what YOU think is going on i nthe scene. Why is that so hard? I am not really interested in the translation because they are insignificant to the question I posed to YOU and that is what do YOU think is happening. The word “trinity” isnt used in scripture but I take it you believe in the “trinity”, correct? We see it in the presence of other words and examples. Repentance and penance are revealed in other ways, just like the “trinity”, in scripture. All I want is YOUR thoughts on whats happening in that scene between Jesus and Peter.

You’re not a knucklehead, and I’m fairly certain that I’m being overly roundabout rather than very bright. Here, though, there seems to be a similar sort of dichotomy between the options of “repentance” and “penance” (although, as you say, no similar word is used in this particular passage). I would probably go with something more along the lines of repentance, and as you say, you’re going with something more along the lines of penance. But from some of the other comments that people have contributed, it’s also clear that it’s not really that simple. I’m sure I won’t find too many Catholics who will deny that Peter is repentant, and I’ve already seen a description of how repentance comes first and then penance naturally follows after.

In the end, I suppose it comes down to the Catholic saying Peter is demonstrating a basis for the sacrament of penance because his interaction with Jesus is done in a Catholic way, and Protestants will probably say this interaction is an act of repentance that is done in something more like a Protestant way and there’s no good basis for a sacrament that didn’t become mandatory until early in the 13th century thanks to the Fourth Lateran Council. At a bare minimum, we’re going to argue that a Christian who doesn’t have this yearly requirement has this in common with the apostolic church while Catholics do not.

At some point, we’re going to have to work out the differences between repentance and penance (which, I’m sure, entails some sort of repentance every time). What should we look at? The form? The people? The results? The reasons for doing it? All of the above? Then I guess we look at the passage and see what’s more consistent with Peter and Jesus’ interaction, go find material that supports our respective points of view, disagree, each become more convinced of what we thought in the first place, and…that’s how we spend the better part of a morning.

Are you sure that’s what you want to do? This is a little different from talking linguistics and semantics- if you grab the right lexicons and grammar tools, you can usually get somewhere with that. I don’t know if we’re going to get anywhere with this, and as far as helping the OP, I don’t know that such an exercise will prove worthy of reproduction in real life.

 

[cooterhein]

Sorry. No can do. I will not accept Protestant belief to talk to Protestants. I will hold to Catholic belief.

Definitely not what I asked you to do. The passion refers to the time Jesus spent suffering extreme physical, mental, and spiritual anguish both leading up to and during the Crucifixion. When Protestants hear you talk about Christ’s Sacrifice, we equate it with Christ’s Passion and that is all. We don’t tend to think about Jesus presenting or re-presenting Himself; often, we will actually assume that you believe Christ is suffering through the Passion at all times. In reality, you believe Jesus suffered the Passion and died just once, but He continues to be a living Sacrifice (rather than a suffering and dying sacrifice) that is continually re-presented to the Father, especially in the form of bread and wine at Mass.

You have a couple of ways of explaining this that are very common, but more often than not, these explanations do not succeed in imparting an understanding of Catholic teaching to Protestants that winds up being the same as what Catholics actually believe. That often does have to do with a lack of sincere effort on the part of Protestants, but there’s also certain ways of explaining things that do not help.

 

[ignatius777]

You’re not a knucklehead, and I’m fairly certain that I’m being overly roundabout rather than very bright. Here, though, there seems to be a similar sort of dichotomy between the options of “repentance” and “penance” (although, as you say, no similar word is used in this particular passage). I would probably go with something more along the lines of repentance, and as you say, you’re going with something more along the lines of penance. But from some of the other comments that people have contributed, it’s also clear that it’s not really that simple. I’m sure I won’t find too many Catholics who will deny that Peter is repentant, and I’ve already seen a description of how repentance comes first and then penance naturally follows after.

In the end, I suppose it comes down to the Catholic saying Peter is demonstrating a basis for the sacrament of penance because his interaction with Jesus is done in a Catholic way, and Protestants will probably say this interaction is an act of repentance that is done in something more like a Protestant way and there’s no good basis for a sacrament that didn’t become mandatory until early in the 13th century thanks to the Fourth Lateran Council. At a bare minimum, we’re going to argue that a Christian who doesn’t have this yearly requirement has this in common with the apostolic church while Catholics do not.

At some point, we’re going to have to work out the differences between repentance and penance (which, I’m sure, entails some sort of repentance every time). What should we look at? The form? The people? The results? The reasons for doing it? All of the above? Then I guess we look at the passage and see what’s more consistent with Peter and Jesus’ interaction, go find material that supports our respective points of view, disagree, each become more convinced of what we thought in the first place, and…that’s how we spend the better part of a morning.

Are you sure that’s what you want to do? This is a little different from talking linguistics and semantics- if you grab the right lexicons and grammar tools, you can usually get somewhere with that. I don’t know if we’re going to get anywhere with this, and as far as helping the OP, I don’t know that such an exercise will prove worthy of reproduction in real life.

I do love how we have to make things more complicated then they need to be. Repentance is a function of an internal realization that some error or sin has been committed. Penance on the other hand is an act that corrects the error or since. Peter acted sinfully when he denied Jesus and repented when he heard the cock crow (it was then that he realized his sin) but Jesus made Peter do penance by 3 times requiring him to answer “Do you love me?” Agian I steal a womans pocketbook and apologize (repentance) butthen I give back what I stole (penance). Simple

 

[benidict]

The word is repentance, not penance.

Here is the english translation from the oldest manuscript extant, the Codex Sinaiticus. This is a Greek manuscript and is dated to the mid fourth century. The Greek word, as it appears in the manuscript, is the same word found throughout the New Testament for “repentance.”

“The Lord delays not concerning the promise, as some count delaying, but is longsuffering for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (metanoia) (appears in the manuscript as: μετανοια).”

The Douay Rheims is a bad translation.

thank you. but please elaborate on why the D.R. is a bad translation. St. Jerome. had the oldest manuscripts to work with. the protestant translators not only changed this verse, but many verses. and if the KJV were so great why were more translations necessary? dont get me wrong. i love the way the old KJV reads. but it is my understanding that it contains thousands of errors. from what i have come to grasp. the KJV is a bad translation. Peace

 

[cooterhein]

I do love how we have to make things more complicated then they need to be. Repentance is a function of an internal realization that some error or sin has been committed. Penance on the other hand is an act that corrects the error or since. Peter acted sinfully when he denied Jesus and repented when he heard the cock crow (it was then that he realized his sin) but Jesus made Peter do penance by 3 times requiring him to answer “Do you love me?” Agian I steal a womans pocketbook and apologize (repentance) butthen I give back what I stole (penance). Simple

We talked a little bit about penance on a different thread; one that you actually started, I believe. Can you make any kinds of connections between these Church teachings on penance and the interaction between Peter and Jesus? (Some of this will look really familiar).

"“Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must ‘make satisfaction’ for or ‘expiate’ his sins. This satisfaction is called ‘penance.’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1459).

What leads you to believe Peter bore the responsibility for expiating his sins in the first place, and what leads you to believe Peter actually did so? Could he just as easily be doing something that doesn’t involve expiating his own sins?

Penance “is meant not merely as a safeguard for the new life and as a remedy to weakness, but also as a vindicatory punishment for former sins” (Council of Trent, 14:8).

In what way was this a vindicatory punishment for former sins? If it is not a vindicatory punishment for former sins and is not meant to be that way, can you still call it penance? Would you call it something different if that were the case?

 

[ignatius777]

We talked a little bit about penance on a different thread; one that you actually started, I believe. Can you make any kinds of connections between these Church teachings on penance and the interaction between Peter and Jesus? (Some of this will look really familiar).

"“Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must ‘make satisfaction’ for or ‘expiate’ his sins. This satisfaction is called ‘penance.’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1459).

What leads you to believe Peter bore the responsibility for expiating his sins in the first place, and what leads you to believe Peter actually did so? Could he just as easily be doing something that doesn’t involve expiating his own sins?

Penance “is meant not merely as a safeguard for the new life and as a remedy to weakness, but also as a vindicatory punishment for former sins” (Council of Trent, 14:8).

In what way was this a vindicatory punishment for former sins? If it is not a vindicatory punishment for former sins and is not meant to be that way, can you still call it penance? Would you call it something different if that were the case?

Will I believe I answered all these in my examples with Peter and the person who stole the pocketbook. Also I believe the situation with Peter further supports the sacrament of reconcilliation and exactly why we need to do penance with another person. In Peter’s case Jesus and in a catholics case a priest. Had Jesus not pressed Peter he may never have done the penance necessary to make himself right with God again. What does it mean when someone is “vindicated”?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hello my friends. 2 Peter 3:9 reads as follows. “The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.” In the N.I.V. and in the K.J.V. the word penance has been changed to repentance. I am in a conversation with a fundamentalist, who claims that penance is a Roman Catholic Dogma. I would think, given that faith is dead without works, that repentance not followed by penance is also dead. your thoughts? I think the Douay Rheims got the translation correct. Peace

Repentance is the correct wording. Its not the baptism of penance. Its the baptism of reprentance. In looking at how the word is translated in other parts of the Bible. Translating it otherwise reflects a theological agenda.

 

[cooterhein]

Will I believe I answered all these in my examples with Peter and the person who stole the pocketbook.

Now if you don’t mind my asking, suppose you do steal a pocketbook. But then you are genuinely remorseful, you apologize, and what’s more, you return the pocketbook. In your example, you equated that with penance. Now let’s say you’ve done all this…the pocketbook is returned…you are vindicated! Forgiven by the person you wronged, hopefully. And from the way you described it, it sounds like you just completed your penance.

Except now you have to go tell a priest about it. You already did all the other things in your example, but now you have to get a third party involved, do reconciliation with him, and maybe do a certain number of Hail Mary’s as a form of what you call “penance.” And if you don’t…what then? I don’t know if I can finish that thought without making people feel insulted.

Also I believe the situation with Peter further supports the sacrament of reconcilliation and exactly why we need to do penance with another person.

I certainly believe in reconciling with those I have wronged. Every child learns to say “I’m sorry” when they hurt someone, right? But then there’s quite a few children who never learn that you must tell your nearest religious leader about it. And those children also have no opportunity to get familiar with the idea of receiving a list of things to do along with a rather conditional “I forgive you.”

In Peter’s case Jesus and in a catholics case a priest.

When’s the last time you wronged a priest and had to go apologize to him- for something that you did to him?

Had Jesus not pressed Peter he may never have done the penance necessary to make himself right with God again.

I’m still pretty far from being sold on calling this “penance.” I get the idea of “returning the pocketbook” and comparing that to “3 I Love You’s for 3 I Deny You’s,” but in practice, returning a pocketbook isn’t what Catholic penance actually is. You return a stolen item, you apologize to the person you wronged, you go to a third party who’s completely unrelated to the incident, you apologize to him as well, and then you do a certain number of repetitious prayers as your penance. That’s the penance, and the whole thing I just described is different from what Peter did with Jesus in a pretty good number of ways.

What I’m trying to say is that we don’t see an example of one person wronging another and- along with the normal things you always do in order to make things right with them- that person also confesses sins to a religious authority and does a certain number of repetitious prayers that are known as “penance.” I look at what Jesus and Peter did and I can say “Yeah, I do that. And if I also told a priest about it and did what Catholics call ‘penance,’ that would be a bunch of extra stuff and additional participants that I don’t see Jesus or Peter getting into at all. If I steal a wallet, I return it and say I’m sorry- just like you said. No problems there.”
Tell me again why I must also go to a priest and do penance if I already gave the wallet back. That was supposed to be the penance. You said that was the penance.

What does it mean when someone is “vindicated”?

Vindicate can mean a lot of different things, but the way it’s used in Trent, vindicatory means just one of them. This is the full range for “vindicate.”

Vindicate- to clear from accusation, justify by providing evidence, maintain or defend, provide justification for, lay claim to.

What we’re talking about is the word “vindicatory,” though. This can be used in two ways- promoting or producing vindication in the sense that it’s defensive or justificatory (like what an apologist does with the Catholic faith- defends it) or…
Promoting or producing retribution or punishment in a punitive or retributive sense. Used in a sentence, you might say “Retributive justice demands an eye for an eye, and is therefore vindicatory.”

Trent helps us out by saying penance is meant to be vindicatory or avenging, so that helps narrow things down.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Now if you don’t mind my asking, suppose you do steal a pocketbook. But then you are genuinely remorseful, you apologize, and what’s more, you return the pocketbook. In your example, you equated that with penance. Now let’s say you’ve done all this…the pocketbook is returned…you are vindicated! Forgiven by the person you wronged, hopefully. And from the way you described it, it sounds like you just completed your penance.

Penance as to your fellow man, yes. Penance as to God, no. Sin wounds our relarionship with man AND God therefore penance as to both is required.

I’m still pretty far from being sold on calling this “penance.” I get the idea of “returning the pocketbook” and comparing that to “3 I Love You’s for 3 I Deny You’s,” but in practice, returning a pocketbook isn’t what Catholic penance actually is. You return a stolen item, you apologize to the person you wronged, you go to a third party who’s completely unrelated to the incident, you apologize to him as well, and then you do a certain number of repetitious prayers as your penance.

The priest is unrelated to the guy you stole the wallet from. The priest is not unrelated to the other One wronged by your sin.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

thank you. but please elaborate on why the D.R. is a bad translation. St. Jerome. had the oldest manuscripts to work with. the protestant translators not only changed this verse, but many verses. and if the KJV were so great why were more translations necessary? dont get me wrong. i love the way the old KJV reads. but it is my understanding that it contains thousands of errors. from what i have come to grasp. the KJV is a bad translation. Peace

The problem is that the D.R. is translated from Latin. One could argue that the translation from Latin is accurate. This is why I brought up the Codex Sinaiticus. The Greek word metanoia cannot be translated as penance. The word means to change one’s mind.

The DRB is very awkward where it uses the word penance in place of repentance. Sometimes it becomes so awkward that the translators were forced to use the word repentance instead of penance, making the DRB inconsistent in its translation.

Here is an example:

From the DRB:

“With modesty admonishing them that resist the truth: if peradventure God may give them repentance (metanoia) to know the truth.” (2 Tim 2:25)

From the Codex Sinaiticus:

“In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if perhaps God may give them repentance (metanoia) to the acknowledgment of the truth.” (2 Tim 2:25)

Had the word penance been used in this instance the statement would make no sense.

 

[ignatius777]

Now if you don’t mind my asking, suppose you do steal a pocketbook. But then you are genuinely remorseful, you apologize, and what’s more, you return the pocketbook. In your example, you equated that with penance. Now let’s say you’ve done all this…the pocketbook is returned…you are vindicated! Forgiven by the person you wronged, hopefully. And from the way you described it, it sounds like you just completed your penance.

Except now you have to go tell a priest about it. You already did all the other things in your example, but now you have to get a third party involved, do reconciliation with him, and maybe do a certain number of Hail Mary’s as a form of what you call “penance.” And if you don’t…what then? I don’t know if I can finish that thought without making people feel insulted.

I certainly believe in reconciling with those I have wronged. Every child learns to say “I’m sorry” when they hurt someone, right? But then there’s quite a few children who never learn that you must tell your nearest religious leader about it. And those children also have no opportunity to get familiar with the idea of receiving a list of things to do along with a rather conditional “I forgive you.”

When’s the last time you wronged a priest and had to go apologize to him- for something that you did to him?

I’m still pretty far from being sold on calling this “penance.” I get the idea of “returning the pocketbook” and comparing that to “3 I Love You’s for 3 I Deny You’s,” but in practice, returning a pocketbook isn’t what Catholic penance actually is. You return a stolen item, you apologize to the person you wronged, you go to a third party who’s completely unrelated to the incident, you apologize to him as well, and then you do a certain number of repetitious prayers as your penance. That’s the penance, and the whole thing I just described is different from what Peter did with Jesus in a pretty good number of ways.

What I’m trying to say is that we don’t see an example of one person wronging another and- along with the normal things you always do in order to make things right with them- that person also confesses sins to a religious authority and does a certain number of repetitious prayers that are known as “penance.” I look at what Jesus and Peter did and I can say “Yeah, I do that. And if I also told a priest about it and did what Catholics call ‘penance,’ that would be a bunch of extra stuff and additional participants that I don’t see Jesus or Peter getting into at all. If I steal a wallet, I return it and say I’m sorry- just like you said. No problems there.”
Tell me again why I must also go to a priest and do penance if I already gave the wallet back. That was supposed to be the penance. You said that was the penance.

Vindicate can mean a lot of different things, but the way it’s used in Trent, vindicatory means just one of them. This is the full range for “vindicate.”

Vindicate- to clear from accusation, justify by providing evidence, maintain or defend, provide justification for, lay claim to.

What we’re talking about is the word “vindicatory,” though. This can be used in two ways- promoting or producing vindication in the sense that it’s defensive or justificatory (like what an apologist does with the Catholic faith- defends it) or…
Promoting or producing retribution or punishment in a punitive or retributive sense. Used in a sentence, you might say “Retributive justice demands an eye for an eye, and is therefore vindicatory.”

Trent helps us out by saying penance is meant to be vindicatory or avenging, so that helps narrow things down.

Our conscious willful sin is not only an offense to the person but one to God has well who sent His only begotten son to pay for our sins yet by our willfully sinful behavior trample all over that sacrifice. Not only do we need to be right with the person we wronged but with God as well. Sitting alone on your couch saying “I’m sorry” for stealing the pocketbook isnt exactly the same thing as standing in front of her now is it? Neither is it the same thing to just say to God…“I’m sorry”.

 

[ignatius777]

Now if you don’t mind my asking, suppose you do steal a pocketbook. But then you are genuinely remorseful, you apologize, and what’s more, you return the pocketbook. In your example, you equated that with penance. Now let’s say you’ve done all this…the pocketbook is returned…you are vindicated! Forgiven by the person you wronged, hopefully. And from the way you described it, it sounds like you just completed your penance.

Except now you have to go tell a priest about it. You already did all the other things in your example, but now you have to get a third party involved, do reconciliation with him, and maybe do a certain number of Hail Mary’s as a form of what you call “penance.” And if you don’t…what then? I don’t know if I can finish that thought without making people feel insulted.

I certainly believe in reconciling with those I have wronged. Every child learns to say “I’m sorry” when they hurt someone, right? But then there’s quite a few children who never learn that you must tell your nearest religious leader about it. And those children also have no opportunity to get familiar with the idea of receiving a list of things to do along with a rather conditional “I forgive you.”

When’s the last time you wronged a priest and had to go apologize to him- for something that you did to him?

I’m still pretty far from being sold on calling this “penance.” I get the idea of “returning the pocketbook” and comparing that to “3 I Love You’s for 3 I Deny You’s,” but in practice, returning a pocketbook isn’t what Catholic penance actually is. You return a stolen item, you apologize to the person you wronged, you go to a third party who’s completely unrelated to the incident, you apologize to him as well, and then you do a certain number of repetitious prayers as your penance. That’s the penance, and the whole thing I just described is different from what Peter did with Jesus in a pretty good number of ways.

What I’m trying to say is that we don’t see an example of one person wronging another and- along with the normal things you always do in order to make things right with them- that person also confesses sins to a religious authority and does a certain number of repetitious prayers that are known as “penance.” I look at what Jesus and Peter did and I can say “Yeah, I do that. And if I also told a priest about it and did what Catholics call ‘penance,’ that would be a bunch of extra stuff and additional participants that I don’t see Jesus or Peter getting into at all. If I steal a wallet, I return it and say I’m sorry- just like you said. No problems there.”
Tell me again why I must also go to a priest and do penance if I already gave the wallet back. That was supposed to be the penance. You said that was the penance.

Vindicate can mean a lot of different things, but the way it’s used in Trent, vindicatory means just one of them. This is the full range for “vindicate.”

Vindicate- to clear from accusation, justify by providing evidence, maintain or defend, provide justification for, lay claim to.

What we’re talking about is the word “vindicatory,” though. This can be used in two ways- promoting or producing vindication in the sense that it’s defensive or justificatory (like what an apologist does with the Catholic faith- defends it) or…
Promoting or producing retribution or punishment in a punitive or retributive sense. Used in a sentence, you might say “Retributive justice demands an eye for an eye, and is therefore vindicatory.”

Trent helps us out by saying penance is meant to be vindicatory or avenging, so that helps narrow things down.

Also confessing to a priest is biblical. Its obviously what Jesus intended otherwise there is no reason for Him to have given the apostles the authority to loose or hold sins bound. Also confessing to a priest provides an active sign that absolution and reconciliation has been achieved.

 

[ignatius777]

Now if you don’t mind my asking, suppose you do steal a pocketbook. But then you are genuinely remorseful, you apologize, and what’s more, you return the pocketbook. In your example, you equated that with penance. Now let’s say you’ve done all this…the pocketbook is returned…you are vindicated! Forgiven by the person you wronged, hopefully. And from the way you described it, it sounds like you just completed your penance.

Except now you have to go tell a priest about it. You already did all the other things in your example, but now you have to get a third party involved, do reconciliation with him, and maybe do a certain number of Hail Mary’s as a form of what you call “penance.” And if you don’t…what then? I don’t know if I can finish that thought without making people feel insulted.

I certainly believe in reconciling with those I have wronged. Every child learns to say “I’m sorry” when they hurt someone, right? But then there’s quite a few children who never learn that you must tell your nearest religious leader about it. And those children also have no opportunity to get familiar with the idea of receiving a list of things to do along with a rather conditional “I forgive you.”

When’s the last time you wronged a priest and had to go apologize to him- for something that you did to him?

I’m still pretty far from being sold on calling this “penance.” I get the idea of “returning the pocketbook” and comparing that to “3 I Love You’s for 3 I Deny You’s,” but in practice, returning a pocketbook isn’t what Catholic penance actually is. You return a stolen item, you apologize to the person you wronged, you go to a third party who’s completely unrelated to the incident, you apologize to him as well, and then you do a certain number of repetitious prayers as your penance. That’s the penance, and the whole thing I just described is different from what Peter did with Jesus in a pretty good number of ways.

What I’m trying to say is that we don’t see an example of one person wronging another and- along with the normal things you always do in order to make things right with them- that person also confesses sins to a religious authority and does a certain number of repetitious prayers that are known as “penance.” I look at what Jesus and Peter did and I can say “Yeah, I do that. And if I also told a priest about it and did what Catholics call ‘penance,’ that would be a bunch of extra stuff and additional participants that I don’t see Jesus or Peter getting into at all. If I steal a wallet, I return it and say I’m sorry- just like you said. No problems there.”
Tell me again why I must also go to a priest and do penance if I already gave the wallet back. That was supposed to be the penance. You said that was the penance.

Vindicate can mean a lot of different things, but the way it’s used in Trent, vindicatory means just one of them. This is the full range for “vindicate.”

Vindicate- to clear from accusation, justify by providing evidence, maintain or defend, provide justification for, lay claim to.

What we’re talking about is the word “vindicatory,” though. This can be used in two ways- promoting or producing vindication in the sense that it’s defensive or justificatory (like what an apologist does with the Catholic faith- defends it) or…
Promoting or producing retribution or punishment in a punitive or retributive sense. Used in a sentence, you might say “Retributive justice demands an eye for an eye, and is therefore vindicatory.”

Trent helps us out by saying penance is meant to be vindicatory or avenging, so that helps narrow things down.

I am not apologizing to the priest but to God. Are you suggesting God is an "unrelated third party in regards to my behavior?

 

[cooterhein]

Our conscious willful sin is not only an offense to the person but one to God has well who sent His only begotten son to pay for our sins yet by our willfully sinful behavior trample all over that sacrifice. Not only do we need to be right with the person we wronged but with God as well. Sitting alone on your couch saying “I’m sorry” for stealing the pocketbook isnt exactly the same thing as standing in front of her now is it? Neither is it the same thing to just say to God…“I’m sorry”.

Should I not be making point-by-point responses? I kind of feel like I’m doing that and you’re not. But I’m also being slower with it than you are, and maybe you have things to do.

Anyway, in this example, I suppose the hypostatic union allowed Peter to kill two birds with one stone, huh? But you have to admit, it’s kind of a long walk from the sea of Galilee to the first council of Ephesus where the hypostatic union was articulated to the Fourth Lateran Council where all Catholics were finally required to do this once a year. A much shorter walk would be the kind where the Bible provides examples of people who confess their sins one to another and they also make a regular habit of confessing those sins to a religious leader and receiving absolution from him in persona Christi. Are there any examples like that? Because I have to say, I can probably build a stronger link for the divine right of kings than what you have going from Jesus and Peter to you and a priest in a confessional box.

Ah, one other thing. If I ever spend enough time with a priest that I have occasion to wrong him in some way, I promise I will apologize to his face and I won’t just sit on my couch at home and do it. Matter of fact, if I wrong someone who’s not a priest, I will apologize to their face, too. I will not just sit on my couch and talk to myself, because really, who does that.

I’m being serious, who are you critical of in this example? Who is it that just sits on the couch and apologizes to thin air?

 

[cooterhein]

Also confessing to a priest is biblical. Its obviously what Jesus intended otherwise there is no reason for Him to have given the apostles the authority to loose or hold sins bound. Also confessing to a priest provides an active sign that absolution and reconciliation has been achieved.

Are we not doing Jesus and Peter anymore?

 

[cooterhein]

I am not apologizing to the priest but to God.

This is also true of me. I do not apologize to a priest; I apologize to God.

Are you suggesting God is an "unrelated third party in regards to my behavior?

No, that would be the priest. The one I don’t apologize to. And you say you don’t either, but I guess you have to apologize…in front of him?

Edit- if the priest happens to be the person I have wronged, then he, of course, in no longer an unrelated third party. Or on the off chance that a priest finds a way to wrong me, then he’d be involved, too. But there’s small chance of that, given that I’m not involved at a Catholic parish.

 

[ignatius777]

Should I not be making point-by-point responses? I kind of feel like I’m doing that and you’re not. But I’m also being slower with it than you are, and maybe you have things to do.

Anyway, in this example, I suppose the hypostatic union allowed Peter to kill two birds with one stone, huh? But you have to admit, it’s kind of a long walk from the sea of Galilee to the first council of Ephesus where the hypostatic union was articulated to the Fourth Lateran Council where all Catholics were finally required to do this once a year. A much shorter walk would be the kind where the Bible provides examples of people who confess their sins one to another and they also make a regular habit of confessing those sins to a religious leader and receiving absolution from him in persona Christi. Are there any examples like that? Because I have to say, I can probably build a stronger link for the divine right of kings than what you have going from Jesus and Peter to you and a priest in a confessional box.

Ah, one other thing. If I ever spend enough time with a priest that I have occasion to wrong him in some way, I promise I will apologize to his face and I won’t just sit on my couch at home and do it. Matter of fact, if I wrong someone who’s not a priest, I will apologize to their face, too. I will not just sit on my couch and talk to myself, because really, who does that.

I’m being serious, who are you critical of in this example? Who is it that just sits on the couch and apologizes to thin air?

I apologize but I am doing mutiple things and the length of your responses makes it difficult to review and address point by point. If you’d like I’ll refrain from answering you until I have the time to answer point by point. However I think the length of your responses into areas that are superfluous make it difficult for me to be too interested in all the details.

Peter only had to make penance with Jesus because in that case Jesus was the only one he sin against. The point you were trying to make here is exactly what i was talking about above.

 

[ignatius777]

Should I not be making point-by-point responses? I kind of feel like I’m doing that and you’re not. But I’m also being slower with it than you are, and maybe you have things to do.

Anyway, in this example, I suppose the hypostatic union allowed Peter to kill two birds with one stone, huh? But you have to admit, it’s kind of a long walk from the sea of Galilee to the first council of Ephesus where the hypostatic union was articulated to the Fourth Lateran Council where all Catholics were finally required to do this once a year. A much shorter walk would be the kind where the Bible provides examples of people who confess their sins one to another and they also make a regular habit of confessing those sins to a religious leader and receiving absolution from him in persona Christi. Are there any examples like that? Because I have to say, I can probably build a stronger link for the divine right of kings than what you have going from Jesus and Peter to you and a priest in a confessional box.

Ah, one other thing. If I ever spend enough time with a priest that I have occasion to wrong him in some way, I promise I will apologize to his face and I won’t just sit on my couch at home and do it. Matter of fact, if I wrong someone who’s not a priest, I will apologize to their face, too. I will not just sit on my couch and talk to myself, because really, who does that.

I’m being serious, who are you critical of in this example? Who is it that just sits on the couch and apologizes to thin air?

Isnt it the protestant position that one can just say they are sorry to God? You could do that on your couch couldnt you? I’m being serious who is it that just sits on their couch and apologizes? Apparently its protestants

 

[ignatius777]

Are we not doing Jesus and Peter anymore?

If not its because you’ve taken us away. Lets get back

 

[ignatius777]

This is also true of me. I do not apologize to a priest; I apologize to God.

No, that would be the priest. The one I don’t apologize to. And you say you don’t either, but I guess you have to apologize…in front of him?

Edit- if the priest happens to be the person I have wronged, then he, of course, in no longer an unrelated third part. Or on the off chance that a priest finds a way to wrong me, then he’d be involved, too. But there’s small chance of that, given that I’m not involved at a Catholic parish.

Then you could apologiize on your couch couldnt you?

If you want to call it in front of him thats fine with me but the priest represents God and functions in His place to loose or hold sins bound just as scripture proclaims.