Do you have questions about Catholic beliefs & Practices

[PJM]

Hi Gazelam! Happy New Year! Blessings to you and your loved ones!

I have not read all of PJM’s posting here, so it may be context of doctrines of faith and others of the sacraments. The doctrines define all our beliefs. The Catholic Catechism is beautiful. The Prologue is a great read as well because it gives you the perspective of reading and learning Catholic beliefs.

The Catechism begins with the Prologue, then our Profession of Faith – the breakdown of our Creed, the core tenants of our faith. Part 2 is the celebration of the Christian Mystery – here the liturgy and the sacraments are defined. Part 3 is Life in Christ. And Part 4 is prayer, our basic relationship with God centered on fulfilling His will.

Confirmation is one of the 7 sacraments and is in the Catechism. It is defining.

One can go to the book of Revelations and read the mysterious passage of the Lamb with 7 eyes. Watching…the eye…I visited a church that had the remains of an ancient Roman martyr and above the altar, there was a stained glass window of one eye…the every watching and caring eye of God.

Christ watches over us, He is the good shepherd, He ministers to us in the 7 sacraments.

The sacrament of Trinitarian baptism, confession, the Eucharist, and confirmation are rites of initiation into the fullness of active faith in the Church.

Trinitarian baptism – in the broadest sense -0 allows the baptized as now a member of the universal Catholic Church, but not fully received into the life of the Church through the rest of the sacraments.

We receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. We receive a final sealing, a strengthening, a grace of standing up for our faith in face of persecution through the sacrament of Confirmation.

There is a movement in the Church to return confirmation back to the time when one receives all rest of the sacraments of initiation. Unfortunately, there was this popular movement to have something for the teens, so confirmation was moved up to be a teen age based rite, but at that age, they are more into socializing and being in groups, and defining themselves as emerging adults.

The sacraments are concrete. We can touch them. Water, fire, bread and wine are ordinary elements of every day life. But when they become sacraments, these humble, ordinary means of life now break into the greater reality of the divine, the Word Made Flesh.

Likewise, there has been this ongoing perception that Catholics don’t read the bible. For myself, as a cradle Catholic, I came to get the best instruction of Sacred Scriptures at the Mass, at the every day homily. It also would reflect the time of our liturgical year or a particular saint in living out the Word of God in a heroic but simple, ordinary way. After hearing the Word, I receive the Eucharist that brings life to the Word, and gives me grace to make the personal crosses I carry so light, that the Eucharist facilitates me in forgetting myself to instead serve others in the Lord.

I was just stepping in and did not follow all of PJM’s

a REALLY GREAT post! Thanks,

Just a few points of clarification.

If your inclined to read the Catechism, I humbly suggest that you go to the USCCB web site and order the most recent version writtten specifically for the Laity. Previous versions were in tended for clerics and catechist. It is FAR eas more user-friendly.

As to the Church’s decision for confirmation; is was much more than just having something for the teen years; although that may have been a secondary consideration.

More importantly; the Church in Wisdom guided by the HS desired to make reasonable the personal-covenant one makes [over the age of reason] between themselves-the Church and Their-God; NOW claiming to Know; to Understand and to personally Accept [commit too] ALL that the Church Teaches as commanded by Jesus in Mt. 28:19-20]

The teenage years added to the potential RIGHT and full understanding of this commitment; not quite as likely in younger youth

GREAT Post, thanks!

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Hi PJM,

It is* not clear* at all that the apostles were first to preach the gospel , of forgiveness of sins even at baptism, and then thereafter of forgiveness of post baptismal sins thru confessional to a priestly class. That is not an explicit rendering of John 20:23 that you support. One must answer then the significance of Jesus breathing into them the Holy Ghost .One must answer the difference between this and Pentecost. One must answer how does laying of hands equal breathing into, and do we not all have the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, or is it just the priestly class? .

It is implied to me to me why the Lord signified the union of the Holy Ghost and the apostles (and us). We are told all manner of sin can be forgiven, save the blaspheming of the Holy Ghost .This sin can not be remitted but is retained. Just as we know that sins are remitted thru acceptance of the gospel and retained thru rejection of the gospel. Why ? Because the gospel is God breathed, the words of any believer and of the apostles are God breathed.That is The Holy Spirit does three things: convicts of sin, and of judgement, and of righteousness in Christ. Now the apostles speak with authority of the Holy Ghost and can retain /remit sin, based upon a persons acceptance or rejection of the Holy Spirit speaking, thru the apostles… This was the focus of their ‘mission’. Why would Christ give a new teaching just before His ascension, and to something not practiced by them as they went out two by two previously ? There is no evidence that even Christ held confessional time. Most sins were forgiven upon first encounter with Christ. Folks did not come back to Him from time to time during the next two or three years thereafter for ‘confession’ that I recall

No, sorry about the rambling, but John 20 does not clearly show the Sacrament. Understand your implication of John 20, but it is not explicit.

Blessings

Hi benhur

1st a comment on Protestants and the HS by way of observation

In view of the now many THOUSANDS of differing Protestant faith, churches, abd beliefs it seems reason to me to question just how extensively the HS is actually indweeling within this multiplicity of belief systems; knowing that:

Truth per defined issue has to be singular

And THAT the Doctrine of Catholic Confession most certainly existed PRIOR to the reformation. So any other understand falls into subjectivity competing with objectivity.

The Council of Trent; the Catholic response to the reformation *; did not so much teach NEW as it did clarify and articulate Old; what had been already the beliefs and practices of the CC.

Because John the Baptist taught “repent; for the forgiveness of your sins and be Baptized”; I find it difficult to believe that; following the Tradition of using OT priest for “sin-forgiveness”; ADDED to the empowerment of Christ specifically and exclusively to His Apostles and their successors; that there would have been much of a time lag in this practice taking a regular form.

Mt 3: 11
“I indeed baptize you in the water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.”

And yes, I understand that this was not yet “for the forgiveness of sin”; BUT

Acts Of Apostles 2:38
But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost"

Surely Peter and apostles would have been aware of man;'s BASE nature and the need for AFTER Baptism sin forgiveness…

Tie this in with Johns 20:21-23, and its unimaginable that some sort of Confession form was soon put in place.

I know practice of one-on-one Confession was a more recent addition of our practice of the Faith handed on. But there is evidence of Confession; at first being very public with extreme “penances” the norm. So what exactly you mean by “early” seems to be??? Subjective?

Catholic Encyclopedia

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Sacrament of Penance I humbly suggest you pull it up and read in its entirety.

The Council of Trent (1551) declares:
As a means of regaining grace and justice, penance was at all times necessary for those who had defiled their souls with any mortal sin. . . . Before the coming of Christ, penance was not a sacrament, nor is it since His coming a sacrament for those who are not baptized. But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when, being raised from the dead, he breathed upon His disciples saying: ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained’ (John 20:22-23). By which action so signal and words so clear the consent of all the Fathers has ever understood that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles and to their lawful successors, for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after Baptism. (Sess. XIV, c. i)

Farther on the council expressly states that Christ left priests, His own vicars, as judges (praesides et judices), unto whom all the mortal crimes into which the faithful may have fallen should be revealed in order that, in accordance with the power of the keys, they may pronounce thesentence of forgiveness or retention of sins" (Sess. XIV, c. v)

God Bless you,

Patrick*

 

[benhur]

I suspect [personally] both
The priesthood seems to have to flow from the Pope; Papacy and One True Church. Each of which are points of Protestant denial. And this is logical IF they are going to have any grounds biblical or otherwise as justification to be apart of a faith competing with the One Jesus taught, established and intended to pass on through the CC.

Such logical musings have their place, yet each point of discord can be studied on it’s own. I mean some do not believe in the pope but do believe in priesthood, or in one true church. Or as noted below on Luther/Calvin and their differences on the confessional.

I disassociate Baptism from Sacramental Confession as Baptism can be received validly and licitly only one time; whereas Sacramental Confession is Christ “elixir” for the ongoing forgiveness of mans’s sins; the way Jesus WOULD and does have us restore one’s “lost” Justification.

I would venture to say that today’s majority of confessions does not do so to regain"lost" justification. In the old days perhaps, and that only for a serious crime, and that confessing publicly, and granted by bishop.

“In some churches of Spain, disorder in the ministry of penence has gained ground, so that people sin as they like, and again and again ask for reconciliation from the priest. This must no longer happen; but according to the old canons everyone who regrets his offence must be first excluded from communion, and must frequently present himself as a penitent for the laying on of hands when his time of penance is over, then, if it seems good to the bishop, he may again be received to communion; if, however, during his time of penance or afterwards, he falls back into his old sin, he shall be punished according to the stringency of the old canons” (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1895) Volume IV, pp. 419-420)."

“It is not to be supposed, however, that frequent penance for the grave sins, the customary practice of later centuries, was yet permitted… advocates of public penance in the Middle Ages often cited the patristic literature as evidence that the act of penance may not be repeated” (John McNeill and Helena Gamer, Medieval Hand-Books of Penance (New York: Octagon, 1965), pp. 4, 8, 14).

The idea that one can be always saved unconditionally, is simply a failed attempt at
one-ups-menship. Having no foundation in reality or truth.

Perhaps, and due to countering the other extreme of an institutional,sacramental, conditional salvation.

Luther and Calvin both understood that their personal beliefs; knowingly in competition with Christ would in an absolute sense have to be be “sold” to take hold. They therefore intentionally or not; made their beliefs easier to understand and FAR easier to follow. Salesmanship, pure and simple… Did thay actually believe what they taught. SURE! But just as surely it was couched to SELL.

Indeed. Everybody is selling something. Yet point by point is best, and not en masse . I mean both Luther and Calvin differed on the confessional, yet not on any “Catholic” or anti Catholic grounds, but on how they interpreted scripture itself.

As far as making easier and selling, is today’s confessional practice here because it is much easier than the previous practice(s) of public confession, and restoration of “lost” justification by bishop only, and only once, etc.?

Blessings

 

[drac16]

As a FYI, EACH of the “things” you mention as relics; are NOT:shrug: They each sound fraudulent to me.

Thanks for posting,

Patrick

OK, if they are made up, I apologize. I assumed the movie was historically accurate; perhaps I was wrong for assuming. Don’t people use the scala sancta, though? it’s a group of stairs that Christ had, supposedly, fallen upon. People go there to kiss the steps that Christ touched (gaining an indulgence thereby).

 

[benhur]

1st a comment on Protestants and the HS by way of observation

In view of the now many THOUSANDS of differing Protestant faith, churches, abd beliefs it seems reason to me to question just how extensively the HS is actually indweeling within this multiplicity of belief systems; knowing that:

Truth per defined issue has to be singular

Yes if truth is per defined issue then it is problematic to define/discern the indwelling of the Holy Ghost by unity on all issues. There are not 30,000 views on communion, of confession or on the pope or on John 20:23.

And THAT the Doctrine of Catholic Confession most certainly existed PRIOR to the reformation. So any other understand falls into subjectivity competing with objectivity.

Yet it is subjective to say that earlier Catholic view is “objective” by nature. As it is stated in the book of Job: Age should teach wisdom but does not always. Understanding comes from God , and is not a respecter of ‘age’.

The Council of Trent; the Catholic response to the reformation *; did not so much teach NEW as it did clarify and articulate Old; what had been already the beliefs and practices of the CC.*Yes the word ‘reform’ can not be cordially accepted by a Catholic as does the word "protestant’ to a reformer/non-Catholic.

Because John the Baptist taught “repent; for the forgiveness of your sins and be Baptized”; I find it difficult to believe that; following the Tradition of using OT priest for “sin-forgiveness”; ADDED to the empowerment of Christ specifically and exclusively to His Apostles and their successors; that there would have been much of a time lag in this practice taking a regular form.

Correct . I mean one second you are drinking from an old wine skin and the next a new one. Again, no indication that Christ, nor John the baptist, nor the apostles acted in a OT priestly/sacramental fashion of sin forgiveness, save by proclamation of the once for all sacrifice to come, or that came.

Surely Peter and apostles would have been aware of man;'s BASE nature and the need for AFTER Baptism sin forgiveness…

And surely they would have been aware of the New Nature in man, followed by an unprecedented, unconditional indwelling of the Holy Ghost that these baptisms signify.

Tie this in with Johns 20:21-23, and its unimaginable that some sort of Confession form was soon put in place.

It is unimaginable that Calvary/Baptisms would need an institution/ sacrament for continued graces.

I know practice of one-on-one Confession was a more recent addition of our practice of the Faith handed on. But there is evidence of Confession; at first being very public with extreme “penances” the norm. So what exactly you mean by “early” seems to be??? Subjective?

Of course “early” and “recent” need qualifying. They are short cuts to otherwise stating exact dates and or time periods. To me early is a few generations from the apostles, while to others early is anything in first millennium.

B]The Council of Trent (1551) declares:

As a means of regaining grace and justice, penance was at all times necessary for those who had defiled their souls with any mortal sin. . . . Before the coming of Christ, penance was not a sacrament, nor is it since His coming a sacrament for those who are not baptized. But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when, being raised from the dead, he breathed upon His disciples saying: ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained’ (John 20:22-23). By which action so signal and words so clear the consent of all the Fathers has ever understood that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles and to their lawful successors, for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after Baptism. (Sess. XIV, c. i)

Farther on the council expressly states that Christ left priests, His own vicars, as judges (praesides et judices), unto whom all the mortal crimes into which the faithful may have fallen should be revealed in order that, in accordance with the power of the keys, they may pronounce the sentence of forgiveness or retention of sins" (Sess. XIV, c. v)

I humbly suggest there is no consent of all the Fathers as to the evolving interpretation of John 20. I agree with Trent with the power of forgiving with the apostles, even with reconciling for fallen faithful thru/with presbyters. I suppose further words from Trent are in order to further expound on what that means and does not mean.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

First of all try to understand WHY Protestants differ on this teaching; which HIGHLY significantly is carried OVER [now completed; fulfilled

and perfected by Jesus] from God’s choice to USE His OT-Priest for sin forgiveness:
Carrying over and fulfilled have differences which Paul expounds on in Hebrews. The OT priesthood was by nature weaker as were the sacrifices and even the hands that offered them. Indeed forgiveness is “carried over”, but by a better, newer foreshadowed perfect bridge, leaving the old bridge behind. Not only are animal sacrifices left behind, but also the need for priestly hands (ears) to facilitate as intermediaries. Otherwise , we “lay again on the foundation of dead works” Heb 6:1

Lev.5: 13 “[Thus the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed in any one of these things, and he shall be forgiven. And the remainder shall be for the priest, as in the cereal offering." … Lev.6:7 ]“and the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things which one may do and thereby become guilty."

Yes, quite old:

“A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away(defunct)” Heb 8:13.

“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” 7:12

“But this man, because he continueth ever, (as our priest)” 7;24 (we already have one ‘man’ as priest, do we need another ?)

“He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” 10:14 (I would add your sacrament makes it sound like we are perfected not once forever but only until our next confession. Do not get sacramental sanctification to sacramental sanctification from this.)

“Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place” 10:19
“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water”. 10:22 (Again, reference is to what Christ has done for us, not a new sacrament… We, as brothers and sisters, go in to the holiest of places because we are washed already by one “man” who went ahead of us).

As Luther is THOUGHT to have said; these sins were covered over like snow on a dung heap." BUT Not through imparted powers and authority GRANTED to His Church
Catholic Actually have the Power and Authority to forgive sins in Christ name

Yes, because our nature must change also. Hence twice Hebrews states, " I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,”10:16. Beyond that Luther did say God forgives thru the priest in the confessional.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” 7:12

Amen.

“But this man, because he continueth ever, (as our priest)” 7;24 (we already have one ‘man’ as priest, do we need another ?)

We ARE a priestly people. We do not cease to facilitate the priesthood because we have One High Priest, Jesus… on the contrary, we live in His priesthood… and set apart those (as He first did with the 12) who administer the priestly Rites.

“He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” 10:14 (I would add your sacrament makes it sound like we are perfected not once forever but only until our next confession. Do not get sacramental sanctification to sacramental sanctification from this.)

Are we perfected if we are in sin (after our Baptism)???

“Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place” 10:19
“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water”. 10:22 (Again, reference is to what Christ has done for us, not a new sacrament… We, as brothers and sisters, go in to the holiest of places because we are washed already by one “man” who went ahead of us).

Yes, we don’t pit the Sacrament against what Jesus has done for us! God forbid. We receive the grace from what He did and is doing in us.

Yes, because our nature must change also. Hence twice Hebrews states, " I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,”10:16. Beyond that Luther did say God forgives thru the priest in the confessional.

God forgives through the Appointed leader (priest) of the community. Can a man sin against the body and then keep it hidden from it???

 

[eazyduzit]

First of all try to understand WHY Protestants differ on this teaching; which HIGHLY significantly is carried OVER [now completed; fulfilled and perfected by Jesus] from God’s choice to USE His OT-Priest for sin forgiveness:

Lev.5: 13 “Thus the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed in any one of these things, and he shall be forgiven. And the remainder shall be for the priest, as in the cereal offering." … Lev.6:7 “and the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things which one may do and thereby become guilty."

As Luther is THOUGHT to have said; these sins were covered over like snow on a dung heap." BUT Not through imparted powers and authority GRANTED to His Church
Catholic Actually have the Power and Authority to forgive sins in Christ name

Jn. 17:18-20 & again in 20:21

[18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. [19] And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me & 20:21 “[21] He said therefore to them again:** Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you”** MEANING WITH HIS AUTHORITY!

Christ One True Church had already existed WITH obviously God’s intended Faith beliefs for more than 1,500 years before the reformation which selectively changed them to meed their personal idea of what Christ should have taught. What Christ DID choose to teach was obvious even to these revolutionist. As was TASK they embraced; namely to overthrow; to kill idf possible Christ Catholic Church.

In order to have any chance at all in accomplishing this they recognized that what ever they did it would HAVE to be easier to understand and FAR easier to LIVE than the demands of Catholicism.

Romans 1:25 Jesus speaking “Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen”
**
2nd. Peter 1: 16-21 “You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place**, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

2nd. Peter 3: 14-17 “Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom

ALL of the key’s to heaven single gate [Mt 16: 18] “MY CHURCH” singular] were given by Jesus to Peter and his successors. & Jesus commanded directly’ precisely and exclusively Peter & Successors only to Cf. TEACH “ALL THAT I HAVE TAUGHT TO YOU!” Mt 28:18-20

Just as yahweh Choise for a reason JUST One Chosen People; Jesus did likewaise; calling HIS “chosen people” MY Church"

The passages you reference are OPEN to interpretation BUT only BY those guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. The Bible dear friend is a Catholic Bokk written [NT] By and FOR other Catholics.The ONLY Christian faith to exist anywhere in the world until the Great Easter Schism of 1054 AD.

Jn 17:17-20

"Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth [God cannot deny Himself] . As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. [19] And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

Jesus HIMSELF is the warraty of Catholic Faith & Moral truth. No other faith or church can make AND support such a claim:thumbsup:

Great questions, thanks

The thing is, i do understand the root of the problem Patrick. It is that there is one church that wants to hold the scriptures bound with its own definitions that are always in the direction of keeping God’s powers and authority for themselves. That is why the Bible was never allowed to be translated into vernacular languages. It was not the Reformation that caused the translations, but the translations caused the Reformation. It was not by coincidence that it happened at the time that the printing press was invented.
BTW, i don’t agree at all with Luther’ s dung hill illustration. The blood of Jesus doesn’t cover sins, it completely washes them away.

I can’t except that there is any carry over of OT ways, otherwise we do not have a “NEW and living way” Jesus did not come to modify the law but to replace it with a NEW covenant and a whole new way. The Great difference is that He is now our high priest and we are one with Him. “For both He that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified are all of one”. This is totally different than before. There is no comparison or carry over. Then in Heb.1:3 we see that “when he had BY HIMSELF purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” signifying that the offering is completed and that He offers no more, because He has sat down. There are no other priests that play any part in this. Because we are now made one with Christ, we do not need an intermediary priest to bring forgiveness as in the OT.

Paul propheticly said “But i fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” 2Cor11:3.

But nice try Patrick

 

[eazyduzit]

Amen.

We ARE a priestly people. We do not cease to facilitate the priesthood because we have One High Priest, Jesus… on the contrary, we live in His priesthood… and set apart those (as He first did with the 12) who administer the priestly Rites.

Are we perfected if we are in sin (after our Baptism)???

Yes, we don’t pit the Sacrament against what Jesus has done for us! God forbid. We receive the grace from what He did and is doing in us.
God forgives through the Appointed leader (priest) of the community. Can a man sin against the body and then keep it hidden from it???

If sin could mess it up, then we would not be perfected forever. We all sin no one is immune from this malady. But grace is greater than sin.

Iniquity is sin against God. We have broken His law. We have offended His holyness. That is why we confess to Him and go to Him for forgiveness and not to a man. In Ps.51, King David confesses to God and not a priest. That is our model.

 

[Reuben_J]

It is that there is one church that wants to hold the scriptures bound with its own definitions that are always in the direction of keeping God’s powers and authority for themselves. That is why the Bible was never allowed to be translated into vernacular languages.

What is your source for this?

I understand that there are indeed Protestants who hold unto this view, but it is by no mean a consensus among historians or Biblical scholars, much less Catholic scholars, which is of course not a very big surprise.

I think the general opinion among Catholics was that the Bible was not translated into vernacular languages because of caution against mistranslation. Other factors might be due to lack of qualified translators who could work together as a team with the Church then and the absence of printing press.

 

[rcwitness]

If sin could mess it up, then we would not be perfected forever. We all sin no one is immune from this malady. But grace is greater than sin.

We are perfected through turning from our sins… through repenting and confessing.

Iniquity is sin against God. We have broken His law. We have offended His holyness. That is why we confess to Him and go to Him for forgiveness and not to a man. In Ps.51, King David confesses to God and not a priest. That is our model.

Jesus and His bride are united… I do not wish to separate them in my confession, because my sin is not only against God. A priest represents (as a man ordained in the body) the body of believers.

It’s not so much that a priest “represents” Christ… but that Christ is present (through ordination and Laying on of Hands), and so is the Church (whom the priest is a member of).

It is Jesus whom we seek in Reconciliation, it is He who compels us to seek Him in the Sacrament.

 

[benhur]

What is your source for this?

I understand that there are indeed Protestants who hold unto this view, but it is by no mean a consensus among historians or Biblical scholars, much less Catholic scholars, which is of course not a very big surprise.

I think the general opinion among Catholics was that the Bible was not translated into vernacular languages because of caution against mistranslation. Other factors might be due to lack of qualified translators who could work together as a team with the Church then and the absence of printing press.

Hi Reuben.Agree.

Yet there is a grain of truth in those assertions. It is actually in response to the reformation that stringency was placed on vernacular, culminating in the 19 th century, with decrees against bible societies and vernacular translations/reading. Of course those decrees have been done away with today.

But yes, many vernacular translations existed before the reformation, but certainly many more afterwards. And yes, there was also a hesitancy to create more. If Wycliffe and Tyndale had errors or had to operate in secrecy, why didn’t the church just do it right as King James did, with a plethora of scholars, certainly also available to the Catholic Church at all times ?

Again, you are correct in your point , yet some truth/basis to the ‘misconceptions’.

Blessings

 

[PJM]

Patrick,
It makes no logic to use one verse to invalidate all the other promises of forgiveness in the bible.What it means is that your understanding of this particular verse is off the mark and out of harmony.

Second, if the Catholic priest has the same power as Peter, then he should be able to know my sins without my having to tell him as Peter did in the case of Ananias and Saphira in Acts.5.
He cannot, so he doesn’t have the same power.

Jesus did not give a Sacrament of Reconciliation, but he gave the church the commission to discern who truly repents and who might not if there seems to be any question.

My friend, I responded yesterday to the first point you made; allow me now to address the second.

You’re focused of the wrong thing here. [The power of the priest]

Certainly God COULD do, as he did with peter here and through an indwelling permit priest to know our sins without the need for Confessing them. BUT then the precise purpose of Sacramental Confession would be both missed and negated. JUST as God COULD do it in the manner you advocate; BUT choose not to. GOD choose a differernt way for a reason.

In essence and in application just WHY Jesus Instituted Sacramental would continue to be misunderstood and it’s benefits LOST to the Souls that need it.

Confession is ALL about OUR personal relationship with OUR God.

It is through the act and the action of KNOWN forgiveness of our sins that we were [are] embarrassed to Confess [to another man? NO! to our God THROUGH a God-Chosen man];that brings us always and every-time CLOSER and more mindful of our God. It is confronting God; God’s Mercy that opens for us the evident love Of and For our God.

In Jn 20:19, 21–23 we so often gloss over the MOST significant point; THEE critical teaching because we are focused only on ourselves. This “ME-ISM”; this necessary inward reflection before being foreced to look outward is the very reason; GOD"S reason for mandating all humanity Confess for forgiveness their sins.

[19] Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you.

[21**] He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained"

We walk into the Confessional [for our sake: privacy!] and walk out with out heads a bit higher; KNOWING that yes or sins HAVE without the slightest doubt been forgiven; BUT even more with gladness and PEACE. Confession is ALL about our inner peace and being either reunited or ready to be FULLY reunited with our God in Catholic Holy Communion.

It is my friend the act of KNOWING [not assuming and not presuming that your dictate to God to forgive you in the manner that you desire;; overriding God’s intent for mandating this GIFT of His Sacramental- GRACE; which is not available attempting to shortcut God’s plan in favor of your own.

Change your focus from the “man” /the priest to yourself and how this Grace builds and BONDS ones Personal Relationship with our God. Amen!

There is BTW, a Sacramental “SEAL” in place that is literally stronger than death itself. The Priest cannot in any way; shape or form confide with anyone under any conditions what was shared in the privacy of the Confession.
**
Friend; may God’s PEACE find & Bless you,
Patrick

God Bless you and thanks for asking,
Patrick

 

[benhur]

We ARE a priestly people. We do not cease to facilitate the priesthood because we have One High Priest, Jesus… on the contrary, we live in His priesthood… and set apart those (as He first did with the 12) who administer the priestly Rites.

yes and there lie two big differences. One, that we have second class priests or only in a "general sense’’(not found even in OT-you are a priest but you have no perfunctory rites ?)) ,watering down Peter’s scripture, and two, what are the priestly (presbyterian ) duties/rites? The inspired scripture (Greek) does not use the word “heirus”/OT priest for any office/duty for a reason.The old class of intermediaries is now defunct, done away with, per Hebrews, and per Peter, for we are all priests(heirus), though not all elders/presbyters.

Are we perfected if we are in sin (after our Baptism)???

So the bible contradicts itself? Do we lie if we say we have no sin ? Do we lie if we say we are not perfect in the new man in Christ ? Are we back to the habitual need for an intermediary, except this time to the intermediary ?

Yes, we don’t pit the Sacrament against what Jesus has done for us! God forbid. We receive the grace from what He did and is doing in us.

Understand.of course you see it as all from Him. Hopefully you understand our viewpoint as well.We feel your priestly confessional does go against what Christ has done for us,that we would then still need an intermediary, that there is a go between not only between us and God as in OT, but now between us and God and His beloved Intermediary.

God forgives through the Appointed leader (priest) of the community. Can a man sin against the body and then keep it hidden from it???

Again does the bible contradict itself? Is confession/remittance only thru a priest, and are we not to be like the apostles, even likewise disciples ? So we are not to confess our faults one to another as James admonishes, and if I confess my trespass against you I can not be forgiven ?

If one confesses to God it is hidden from the body ? Indeed most sins are hidden from the body, and thankfully so. Even though you confess to a priest it is still hidden from the rest of us.

Blessings

 

[Michael68]

yes and there lie two big differences. One, that we have second class priests or only in a "general sense’’(not found even in OT-you are a priest but you have no perfunctory rites ?)) ,watering down Peter’s scripture, and two, what are the priestly (presbyterian ) duties/rites? The inspired scripture (Greek) does not use the word “heirus”/OT priest for any office/duty for a reason.The old class of intermediaries is now defunct, done away with, per Hebrews, and per Peter, for we are all priests(heirus), though not all elders/presbyters.
So the bible contradicts itself? Do we lie if we say we have no sin ? Do we lie if we say we are not perfect in the new man in Christ ? Are we back to the habitual need for an intermediary, except this time to the intermediary ?
Understand.of course you see it as all from Him. Hopefully you understand our viewpoint as well.We feel your priestly confessional does go against what Christ has done for us,that we would then still need an intermediary, that there is a go between not only between us and God as in OT, but now between us and God and His beloved Intermediary.
Again does the bible contradict itself? Is confession/remittance only thru a priest, and are we not to be like the apostles, even likewise disciples ? So we are not to confess our faults one to another as James admonishes, and if I confess my trespass against you I can not be forgiven ?

If one confesses to God it is hidden from the body ? Indeed most sins are hidden from the body, and thankfully so. Even though you confess to a priest it is still hidden from the rest of us.

Blessings

Have you any idea how insulting it is for you to come to a Catholic website and proceed to tell us we don’t need priests or any Catholic teaching?

 

[benhur]

[We walk into the Confessional [for our sake: privacy!] and walk out with out heads a bit higher; KNOWING that yes or sins HAVE without the slightest doubt been forgiven; BUT even more with gladness and PEACE. Confession is ALL about our inner peace and being either reunited or ready to be FULLY reunited with our God in Catholic Holy Communion.It is my friend the act of KNOWING [not assuming and not presuming that your dictate to God to forgive you in the manner that you desire;; overriding God’s intent for mandating this GIFT of His Sacramental- GRACE; which is not available

attempting to shortcut God’s plan in favor of your own.
Yes, “Blessed is the one whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity and in whose spirit there is no guile.Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water”.

Now Luther maintained this with the confessional as you do while Calvin did not. I would not presume that after prayer and self examination and confession before the Lord (and Luther’s further actual confessing to confessor) that one would have more peace or assurance than the other. I would not presume that today one could spot a Catholic apart from a non sacramental Protestant, or discern any difference in peace or assurance of salvation or righteousness or fullness in Christ, not withstanding any differences in maturity, gifting or zeal.

Bottom line my friend (as you kindly say), the end result of your beautiful, impassioned description of your sacramental experience(s) of peace, assurance, gladness, even intimacy with the Lord, we also share, but without sacramental channels. I would beg to differ that God does not equally grace a broken and contrite heart by any other means.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Have you any idea how insulting it is for you to come to a Catholic website and proceed to tell us we don’t need priests or any Catholic teaching?

I’m not insulted… it’s much better to learn his perspective… understand the difference with ours, and try to make others aware of that understanding.

 

[PJM]

PJM thank you for your replies. Both will require some time to digest.

Your VERY welcome:thumbsup:

Please let me know if you have any other questions,

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

HI e,

Agree that reconciliation is not a ‘sacrament’ and indeed the church/apostles/us are “commissioned”. So the church is commissioned with “reconciliation”. This is what Christ was concerned with during the days before His Ascension. That was His focal point with the apostles, getting them ready for the ‘commission’, and not much new teaching. That is why I think John 20:23 is not instituting a sacrament, which would have been a new teaching, a new experience, something they had not practiced or done for any part of the three years. We also know explicitly that the commission was to preach the gospel, the gospel of forgiveness of sins thru Christ , the gospel of reconciliation.

Furthermore, I think we all agree that sins can be forgiven or remitted thru confession, but how do apostles ‘retain’ sin thru the sacrament? Does not make sense. I have not heard ,though I suppose is possible, of a priest saying your , "sorry, your sins are "retained’ , not forgiven. Not sure you need a sacrament for that. For sure, explicitly in scripture, if you are not baptized or do not become a believer in the Blood thru the Gospel, you are at enmity with God, unreconciled, and still in your sins. Hence the preaching, proclaiming of the gospel commission meets the explicit criteria for sin remittance or sin retaining as found in John 20. This is NT. And as you say, we nor the apostles are gifted beyond that commission, and have with giftings, even signs to discern acceptance of that gospel(but only to a degree), but not necessarily to know the specific inner “sincerity” and forgiveness of individual sins, a condition only God knows. The OT even limits the priest who does not have sacramental pretense to forgive perfectly as does C priesthood. That is why once a year the priest offered sacrifice to cover the unknown, the unconfessed sin. It was understood that the confessor and the priest could not meet all of God’s righteous conditions for forgiveness thru out the year. It is a big step to say the priest today or a sacrament today, can cover all or meet all conditions for forgiveness of sins.

Blessings

My friend, PLEASE do yourself & you’re Soul a favor and read the two replies I made to our friend eaztduzit on this string.

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[benhur]

Have you any idea how insulting it is for you to come to a Catholic website and proceed to tell us we don’t need priests or any Catholic teaching?

Well forgive me if you felt I was brash, and perhaps I was/am.

What you find insulting others might find uplifting. My thought about scripture is that we don’t need priests(heirus) is because we all are priests. So while you think I am possibly demoting priests I am actually lifting up laity, accentuating the 'common" priesthood as described by Peter. I also did say we have priests , but in elder/presbyter sense.

You must also remember this Catholic doctrine seeks redress by the very nature of the doctrine saying our post baptismal sins are not forgiven, that we are not graced outside of sacramental channels. I could be offended also but I prefer such strict adherence to your own doctrine in regards to the true ramifications it has for others , and if they are validly visible.

I do not think I am telling you not to sacramentally confess or not believe your sins are forgiven. Rather for you to believe mine are also, and that non scacramentally.

Blessings