Do you have questions about Catholic beliefs & Practices

[benhur]

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

Hi PJM,

I have, and was hoping you would read my post to eazy also, as it was in response partly to yours.

Blessings

 

[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

Now; allow me please to address the point that you bring up. & which I hi-lighted for calrity

Mt 16: 18-19

[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU PETER this rock I [JESUS]will build my church,[Singular] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to YOU [all of] the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever YOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth,** it shall be loosed also in heaven.**

Jn 20:21-23

[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.

So the question is WHY? We seem to agree on the Catholic Priest authority to FORGIVE Confessed sins; SO WHY THEN is the mention made of NOT forgiving [retaining] some sins & that sinner:shrug:

I noted in previous post that going directly to God is a VERY risky; no way assured manner to attain forgiveness of our sins and that it hinges on GOD accepting ONLY truly “Perfect” contrition; nothing less will do; thus the uncertainty.

I also pointed out in Sacramental Confession that due to the intercession of the Priest “perfect contrition is not required.” I perhaps failed to emphasis that CONTRITION [even if imperfect] remains an absolute condition for for forgiveness.

**Let’s take two examples:

Gossiping

Adultery**

Both hold the possibility of being habitual; or at least repeated sins. IT IS THIS DETERMINATION BY THE PRIEST THAT THEN MAY & CAN CHOOSE to RETAIN or NOT forgive the sin & the sinner IF there has been no sincere effort to alter one’s life-pattern of sinning in this particular way.

One of the goals of Sacramental Confession is to direct; aid and assist one over-come the sinful “habit” *; but perhaps inclination would do. A Goal of Confession is to reestablish a Personal Relationship with our God; If the sinner is only going through the motions; BUT not making an evident and sincere effort to AVOID the “NEAR OCCASION OF THAT SIN”; then the priest; trained & GUIDED by the Holy Spirit; not only has the “right” BUT the grave Moral responsibility to NOT grant forgiveness until evidence of a truly CONTRITE heart become evident.

THIS IS AN EXTREMELY RARE EVENT. The Norm is to “assume and presume” in favor of a sincere contrition.

John 5:14
Afterwards, Jesus findeth him in the temple, and saith to him: Behold thou art made whole:** sin no more**, lest some worse thing happen to thee.

Another small point of clarification: The preist does NOT say “your sins are forgiven:’ No; the terms used are 'I ABSOLVE you from your sins; in the name of the Father;Son & Holy Spirit.”

Does that asnwer your question my friend?

God Bless you,
Patrick*

 

[PJM]

Oh so it is OT to confess directly to God? I thought it was also OT to at times also go thru the priest?. Actually it is my understanding that the C does both today also, just that it is always both (to God first ,then the priest). I thought before entering the confessional one reviews, or examines their behavior before, and with the Lord’s help,as David did by saying if there be anything unclean in me Lord…That is, there is suppose to be a pre-confessional time of personal conversation with God, specifically in reviewing one’s actions and any sins, in an attitude of sorrow, and of needing/asking forgiveness from the present Lord. Only then is one ready to go into the confessional, and verbalize and act out what was supposed to spiritually already happened-confess and ask for forgiveness with assurance

We’re getting really deep into philosophy and theology here

1st the RED part:

Yes it is the OT direct to God that Protestants have in a sense usurped; but then only partially. The OT Priest is ommitted. Not good.

Even more importantly is the that even with the OT Priest the sins were NOT “forgiven by the priest”; BUT as Luther is claimed to have said: “their sins are covered over much like a dung heap covered with fresh snow.” It was GOD who did the forgiving NOT the OT priest; who nevertheless retained an essential role of offering the PRESCRIBED [doing it god’s way]offerings.

NOW; under Grace as well as God’s Laws; it is the Catholic Priest; each chosen by the HS

JOHN 15:16 **
“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you** that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.”

That are empowered Mt 10:1-8; Mt 16:18-19; Jn 17:17-20; Mt 28:19-20 in Christ NAME to actually themselves forgive man his sins. Actually forgive NOT merely “cover-over.”

[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth,] it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

I am a firm believer in dispensations and testaments.** I am also a firm believer that God is the same then and now**

My friend conversions and its necessary granting of RIGHT understanding is between you and God. My task as His conduit is to expose the TRUTH [singular per defined issue]

Mt 5: 14-15 “You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house”

Now for the BLUE part:

The fact that God PERMITS you to have your own belief system [even if it countermands God’s Own Desire]; is in no manner evidence that it is accepted by God.

The abundant bible teachings of JUST

One True God

Who can and does have JUST one set of Faith beliefs; taught and accpeted LONG before the reformation

And JUST One True “chosen people” which Jesus NOW terms “MY CHURCH” Mt 16:18
.
You and “yours” confuse
What Jesus COULD have done with what Jesus ACTUALLY choose to do

. Sometimes the difference is only in broadness or level of His mercy and grace. But for sure the OT saints were at times filled with the Holy Host but not permanently ,and sometimes empowered by Him. OT saints were regenerated, saved by faith unto good works, made perfect, covered by the promise of the Blood etc. I mean Job was “perfect”, Enoch was taken, David had a heart after God. Of course today His Spirit is poured and indwellslike never before, and not to select few and to select nation, or peoples. That is why I do not want to restrict forgiveness to an old way , of thru a priestly class (though, as you say, directly to God is old way also, but now thru universal priesthood found in Melchizdek).
Well ,that is what the CC teaches, and if one really believes it, all non sacramental confessors are doomed, unless of course they die shortly after water baptism or commit no mortal sins.

OK, BUT!!!
**
We do NOT live in OT times; under OT rules and what Yahweh accepted then is NOT the same as what Jesus accepts and demands NOW Jesus instituted a NEW Covenant with New and far more Perfect conditions. Amen!**

Mark 14:24
And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many

What you’re suggesting nullifies WHY Jesus; thee Messiah became Incarnate man. On one hand you presume[in error] on Jesus having done ALL tjat is necessary; and then wnat to HIM to accept the OT imperfect [but THEN] acceptable ways and means of salvation. It does NOT compute..

The OT leads to the NT which is:
Fulfilled
Completed & even Perfected by the coming of Christ Amen!

Well one of us is doing this for sure (dictating to God and not from God), and the CC certainly has dictated more on the subject. I suppose it would be better to err with less words than with more.

Blessings Patrick

I’m grateful for at least having made that fact visible.

Understanding MY friend is God’s to give; I only SHARE IT

Continued Blessings,

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

ben MY friend; it is as simple as One Two Three

[1] ALL of the Keys to heaven single gate were indisputable; clearly and exclusively give to Peter and his HAD to be successors [compare Mt 10:1-8 to Mt 28:16-20]

**[2] The Jesus EMPOWERS U Grants sufficient authority WITH the Keys to get HIS Mandate accomplished; and goes to the EXTREME of Offering HIMSELF [Jesus] in his humanity/divinity to THEE Father of Their NOT being able to Teach HIs Faith; His Truths and His Moral Teachings is ERROR [that is the foundation of Papal Infallibility my friend[/COLOR]

John 17: 17-20 **
[17] Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth.[GOG CANNOT DENY HIMSELF] [18] AS thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the worlds** . [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;

These are NOT Catholic inventions; they are GOD’s Divine WORDS; reject them at your own risk

[3] Mt 28: 18-20 COPIED FROM YOUR KING JAMES BIBLE

18** And Jesus came and spake unto them**, saying , All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go YOU therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and, lo , I am with you alway , even unto the end of the world. Amen.

My friend the Bible remains a CATHOLIC Book and this clearly is Jesus COMMANDING Hs Apostles and successors directly ; precisely and exclusively. THAT others are NOT given t his mandate; NOT having Jesus Personally as the evidence of its Truth ought to be sufficiently clear evidence of why their are thousands of DIFFERING bodies of faith beliefs within the Protestant churches.

1 Matthew 13:11
Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.

2
Mark 4:11
And he said to them: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables:

3
Luke 8:10
To whom he said: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to the rest in parables, that seeing they may not see, and hearing may not understand.

God Bless you; you;re in my prayers,

Patrick**

 

[PJM]

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 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.

And yet truth is as it MUST be singular and Jesus has PROMISED that IT REST within the confines in its FULLNESS ONLY in the CC

“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)."

Trent clarified for one and ALL what the position of the RCC is. I shared in it a previous reply. Amen

“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).

THEY ate NOT the Pope; THEY are NOT the Magesterium:shrug:

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

.THEY ate NOT the Pope; THEY are NOT the Magesterium:shrug

2 Peter 1: 19-21 w/ explanation** from the Douay Bible

And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.[21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

**[20] No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation: This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise".

Blessings

I pray God will enlighten you my friend

 

[blanchardman]

of “imputed righteousness”; which is NOT God’s way to salvation.

It’s a good question. Thank you for asking it

God Bless you,
Patrick

Yes this is the problem. Not that someone would believe the word of God (protestants) but that someone (Catholics) would not.
Romans 4:3 “it (faith) was counted (imputed) unto him for righteousness.”
See also Genesis 15:6

May God bless you also.

 

[eazyduzit]

I likewise pray for your enlightenment, Patrick, but God speaks to those who “have ears to hear.” That is those who have not blocked their ears with their tradition. I will admit I suffer from this too, for whenever God speaks it is something I don’t expect. One must truly be open.

 

[eazyduzit]

I noted in previous post that going directly to God is a VERY risky; no way assured manner to attain forgiveness of our sins and that it hinges on GOD accepting ONLY truly “Perfect” contrition; nothing less will do; thus the uncertainty.

God Bless you,
Patrick

I would like to know where you find that perfect contrition is the condition for salvation? The Bible only warns of “worldly sorrow”. Anyone who warns that it is risky to go to God, could not know Him as Father, or at least as King David knew Him. God is the only one who knows our heart and truly understands. The priest cannot. Jesus is the one who pleads our case. He is our heavenly lawyer who has never lost a case.

 

[benhur]

Now; allow me please to address the point that you bring up. & which I hi-lighted for calrity

Mt 16: 18-19

[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU PETER this rock I [JESUS]will build my church,[Singular] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to YOU [all of] the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever YOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth,** it shall be loosed also in heaven.**

Jn 20:21-23

[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.

So the question is WHY? We seem to agree on the Catholic Priest authority to FORGIVE Confessed sins; SO WHY THEN is the mention made of NOT forgiving [retaining] some sins & that sinner:shrug:

I noted in previous post that going directly to God is a VERY risky; no way assured manner to attain forgiveness of our sins and that it hinges on GOD accepting ONLY truly “Perfect” contrition; nothing less will do; thus the uncertainty.

I also pointed out in Sacramental Confession that due to the intercession of the Priest “perfect contrition is not required.” I perhaps failed to emphasis that CONTRITION [even if imperfect] remains an absolute condition for for forgiveness.

**Let’s take two examples:

Gossiping

Adultery**

Both hold the possibility of being habitual; or at least repeated sins. IT IS THIS DETERMINATION BY THE PRIEST THAT THEN MAY & CAN CHOOSE to RETAIN or NOT forgive the sin & the sinner IF there has been no sincere effort to alter one’s life-pattern of sinning in this particular way.

One of the goals of Sacramental Confession is to direct; aid and assist one over-come the sinful “habit” *; but perhaps inclination would do. A Goal of Confession is to reestablish a Personal Relationship with our God; If the sinner is only going through the motions; BUT not making an evident and sincere effort to AVOID the “NEAR OCCASION OF THAT SIN”; then the priest; trained & GUIDED by the Holy Spirit; not only has the “right” BUT the grave Moral responsibility to NOT grant forgiveness until evidence of a truly CONTRITE heart become evident.

THIS IS AN EXTREMELY RARE EVENT. The Norm is to “assume and presume” in favor of a sincere contrition.

John 5:14
Afterwards, Jesus findeth him in the temple, and saith to him: Behold thou art made whole:** sin no more***, lest some worse thing happen to thee.

Another small point of clarification: The preist does NOT say “your sins are forgiven:’ No; the terms used are 'I ABSOLVE you from your sins; in the name of the Father;Son & Holy Spirit.”

Does that asnwer your question my friend?

God Bless you,
Patrick

I think it does, that it is a rare event confessionaly speaking. Thank you.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Even more importantly is the that even with the OT Priest the sins were NOT “forgiven by the priest”;

I think we all understand this.

BUT as Luther is claimed to have said: “their sins are covered over much like a dung heap covered with fresh snow.”

Was he speaking OT? I think so. What do you think he meant? I think he was speaking on Paul and how the law and sacrifice was weak ,in that by themselves they did not change the inner man ,change behavior, that sin offering was continual. Maybe like washing up a pig , but let him go and he is right back into the mud. One needs to be born of the spirit, a metamorphosis, rebirth so to speak…That is why scripture says God will right the laws on our heart and men will know their God.

That are empowered Mt 10:1-8; Mt 16:18-19; Jn 17:17-20; Mt 28:19-20 in Christ NAME to actually themselves forgive man his sins. Actually forgive NOT merely “cover-over.”

Ok .I see where you are coming from. That is another discussion of differences of OT and NT on forgiveness vs covering. have no opinion on that at this time,save what I already said , that OT had most of what we have and maybe to a different extent.

Now for the BLUE part:

The fact that God PERMITS you to have your own belief system [even if it countermands God’s Own Desire]; is in no manner evidence that it is accepted by God.

maybe u misunderstood . The blue( and red partially) part is what I thought a Catholic is supposed to do before going into the confessional.

OK, BUT!!!
**
We do NOT live in OT times; under OT rules and what Yahweh accepted then is NOT the same as what Jesus accepts and demands NOW Jesus instituted a NEW Covenant with New and far more Perfect conditions. Amen!**

Agree just that we differ on how we fit into more Perfect conditions/testament.

What you’re suggesting nullifies WHY Jesus; thee Messiah became Incarnate man. On one hand you presume[in error] on Jesus having done ALL tjat is necessary; and then wnat to HIM to accept the OT imperfect [but THEN] acceptable ways and means of salvation. It does NOT compute..

If I follow you ,I would add for clarification that the OT folks had graces thru faith in the future Messiah, similar to our graces based upon faith in the past Messiah. They looked forward and we look backwards (withstanding the second coming). So perfection in the OT was still based upon the Incarnate Christ. Remember the protoevangelium, in the garden.

The OT leads to the NT which is:
Fulfilled
Completed & even Perfected by the coming of Christ Amen!

Correct. We just differ on what is done away with besides perpetual sacrifices.

'm grateful for at least having made that fact visible.

Understanding MY friend is God’s to give; I only SHARE IT

And you have shared much faithfully, and in good faith, thank you.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

ben MY friend; it is as simple as One Two Three

[1] ALL of the Keys to heaven single gate were indisputable; clearly and exclusively give to Peter and his HAD to be successors [compare Mt 10:1-8 to Mt 28:16-20]

You have me laughing, for it is never simple, or “crystal clear” here, though we try. Yes Peter was given keys, but it is also clear the other apostles later shared in using them, though not first to use. It is also clear later on Jesus has the keys as seen in Revelations and the seven letters. It is clear that the apostles appointed presbyters .What is not clear is that Peter’s appointees (for he appointed more than one) were to be above the others authoritatively. It is not clear that any keys were exclusively only given to one appointee.

B]John 17: 17-20

[17] Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth.[GOG CANNOT DENY HIMSELF] [18]** AS thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the worlds** . [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;
Agree. Where once He chose a nation , He now chooses a church as the foundation and carrier of truth.

These are NOT Catholic inventions; they are GOD’s Divine WORDS; reject them at your own risk

Do we reject God’s divine words, or rightly interpret them ?

My friend the Bible remains a CATHOLIC Book and this clearly is Jesus COMMANDING Hs Apostles and successors directly ; precisely and exclusively. THAT others are NOT given t his mandate; NOT having Jesus Personally as the evidence of its Truth ought to be sufficiently clear evidence of why their are thousands of DIFFERING bodies of faith beliefs within the Protestant churches.

Yes, the stumbling stone of the 30,000. Apparently one is “apostolic” on all points or none at all ? I like what we have been doing ,one truth/doctrine at a time. I do not buy that because not all 30,00 can be right none are , just as I do not buy that because the CC can err on one thing she errs on all. That is God keeps His promises on guidance, and we both differently presume on God just how He does that perfectly.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

And yet truth is as it MUST be singular and Jesus has PROMISED that IT REST within the confines in its FULLNESS ONLY in the CC

Well what you are stressing is that all truth rests in a singular place, not that truth stands on its own absolutely and not relatively and irregardless of who holds it. JW’s also claim full unity and full truth, a singularity.

Trent clarified for one and ALL what the position of the RCC is. I shared in it a previous reply. Amen

Correct, just that it was not the first “clarification”.

THEY ate NOT the Pope; THEY are NOT the Magesterium:shrug:

Correct, but historians can write about what the magisterium has taught through out the past 2000 years. They show an evolving .

Blessings

 

[PJM]

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
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).
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

we’re not getting anywhere here. So allow me to ask you to explain what these bible passages mean?

Jer.7 Verses 22 to 23 “For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them, `Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’ “

Mt. 4: 4 “But he answered, “It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

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 for ever. Amen”

2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
[Douay explanation]

[20] No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation: This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise. End Quotes

I fear we are no-longer dialoging; and have lapsed into a debate:shrug:

Who my friend is in charge? You or God?

God Bless you

 

[PJM]

Hi PJM,

I have, and was hoping you would read my post to eazy also, as it was in response partly to yours.

Blessings

Provide a POST number and I’ll look at it:thumbsup:

 

[PJM]

Yes this is the problem. Not that someone would believe the word of God (protestants) but that someone (Catholics) would not.
Romans 4:3 “it (faith) was counted (imputed) unto him for righteousness.”
See also Genesis 15:6

May God bless you also.

My dear friend Christ; may I humbly ask you to back and READ all of my post on this string that actually do prove why you’re wrong.

I have been very patient and I’m 71 and just pooed out repeating my self; KNOWING full well that ONLY God Himself can grant you HIS understanding.

AFTER you do thi; if you wish to discuss a point or so; PLEASE let me know.

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

I would like to know where you find that perfect contrition is the condition for salvation? The Bible only warns of “worldly sorrow”. Anyone who warns that it is risky to go to God, could not know Him as Father, or at least as King David knew Him. God is the only one who knows our heart and truly understands. The priest cannot. Jesus is the one who pleads our case. He is our heavenly lawyer who has never lost a case.

Matthew 5:48
Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

[blanchardman]

My dear friend Christ; may I humbly ask you to back and READ all of my post on this string that actually do prove why you’re wrong.

I have been very patient and I’m 71 and just pooed out repeating my self; KNOWING full well that ONLY God Himself can grant you HIS understanding.

AFTER you do thi; if you wish to discuss a point or so; PLEASE let me know.

God Bless you,

Patrick

My reply was made after several readings. You said something was not in the Bible
I showed it to you word for word. Do you deny it is there? Twice!
Or are you saying that the teachings of the church trump theBible?

 

[benhur]

Provide a POST number and I’ll look at it:thumbsup:

#93 to eazy

 

[adrift]

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.

He was with them forty days. I am sure He discussed many things with them. It however is not recorded.

That was His focal point with the apostles, getting them ready for the ‘commission’, and not much new teaching

.
It was hardly a new teaching. Jesus said He came to fulfill that would include the practice of the scapegoat. Jesus talks many times about forgiving sins. It isn’t like this was the first time He mentioned it.

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.

As already stated it wasn’t new. They would have seen the practice of the scapegoat many times. They would have heard Jesus talk about the forgiveness of sins. It is not true that they would have had to do it before Jesus gave them the power.

We also know explicitly that the commission was to preach the gospel, the gospel of forgiveness of sins thru Christ , the gospel of reconciliation.

Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Jesus commanded them to make disciples of all nations BY baptizing and teaching all that I have commanded which included the forgiving of their sins.

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

.
Actually priest have refused. But what you are actually saying is what Jesus said doesn’t make sense to you What Jesus was saying is that they were to judge the penitent sincerity of confession of sins.

Hence the preaching, proclaiming of the gospel commission meets the explicit criteria for sin remittance or sin retaining as found in John 20.

You think so

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

I am sure this makes sense to you but it is, pardon me, gibberish to me.
What doesn’t make sense too is that there is no explanation of why Jesus would say this to borrow from another site

John 20:21-23 is so important.
“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.”

My thinking is that if our Lord had not intended to make the Sacrament of Reconciliation a means of grace unto salvation, then why in the world would He have made this statement and given both this power and command to the presbyters of His church?

James 5:16 & 1st John 1:9 also offer us more insight into this doctrine.

James 5: 14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. 16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

1st John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

All these passages expressly speak of confession of sins and so I have to ask, then just how will those outside the Catholic Church explain the obvious link between these passages.

Here is a further outline for study on this sacrament courtesy of John Martignoni and his Bible Christian Society

Quote:

Confession

A. Confess your sins to men
~ Leviticus 5:5-6 (“All scripture…”: 2 Tim 3:16)
(Law is a shadow: Hebrews 10:1)
~ 1 John 1:9
~ James 5:16

B. Can men forgive sins?
~ Only God has the power to forgive sins but He exercises this power through men.
~ Mark 2:7
~ Matthew 9:1-8
When the crowds saw it, they were afraid , and the glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

• Matthew 9:8

 

[PJM]

My reply was made after several readings. You said something was not in the Bible
I showed it to you word for word. Do you deny it is there? Twice!
Or are you saying that the teachings of the church trump theBible?

No friend, I’m saying you don’t have a correct understanding,

God Bless you,

Patrick