Do you have questions about Catholic beliefs & Practices

[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

God’s truth can’t be denied. It is a Sacrament as much as is Baptism which BTW also is not biblically defined as such

 

[Reuben_J]

There are sins which are ‘retained’. One example that I could think of is sin of unapproved divorce, which can only be righted by reconciling with the former spouse or to get that marriage formally annulled. This is a good example where the Church/priests have the power to retain and forgive sin (as person in Christ).

 

[fbl9]

There are sins which are ‘retained’. One example that I could think of is sin of unapproved divorce, which can only be righted by reconciling with the former spouse or to get that marriage formally annulled. This is a good example where the Church/priests have the power to retain and forgive sin (as person in Christ).

me probably wrong…
Unapproved divorce? please explain.
Church teaching states, as does God’s word, that what so God joins together let no man put asunder. There are no approved divorces. There is no sin in divorcing. The sin comes when there is an marital relations with another. If an annulment freed one of sin it also binds one to sin. Which it can not do because if in binding this implies that marriage is a sin.

 

[fbl9]

There are sins which are ‘retained’. One example that I could think of is sin of unapproved divorce, which can only be righted by reconciling with the former spouse or to get that marriage formally annulled. This is a good example where the Church/priests have the power to retain and forgive sin (as person in Christ).

Excommunication is the only concrete example i can come up with for retaining sins.

 

[benhur]

There are sins which are ‘retained’. One example that I could think of is sin of unapproved divorce, which can only be righted by reconciling with the former spouse or to get that marriage formally annulled. This is a good example where the Church/priests have the power to retain and forgive sin (as person in Christ).

Good example as PJM gave another. I think “retain” is not ‘sacramental’ per say (effectual grace) but more in ‘declarative’ or authoritatively proclaiming. Kind of like saying if you continue to shack up unmarried you are still in that sin until you repent…". It is declarative.

As you may know, I feel the ‘remittance’ is also an authoritative proclamation, a declaration, as in proclaiming the gospel and forgiveness of sins thru faith the Blood, and that commission need not be a ‘sacramental’. Another words you see the remittance as post baptismal sacrament and the retaining as post baptismal proclamation, while I see both by pre and post baptismal sins remitted by acceptance of gospel proclamation and retention by rejection of gospel proclamation.

Blessings Reuben

 

[benhur]

God’s truth can’t be denied. It is a Sacrament as much as is Baptism which BTW also is not biblically defined as such

Well, having your sins forgiven certainly shows,communicates grace to the soul.We just differ on the purpose of the ‘sign’. One says the sign is the way to receive the grace. Another says the sign is taken because grace has already been received. Sacrament or rite ?. One is something you do in the flesh to receive spiritual graces, another to show you have received graces already. Again, for sure confessing is done by grace and does communicate/enable further blessings.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

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

Hi a,

Agreed. Yet we walk in the light we have been given. It could be the opposite of the old Bazooka Joe comic strip where Joe is looking for his lost keys under the street light. He is asked where did you drop them, and says over there (in the darkness). He then is asked why then are then you looking over here, and responds because that is where the light is.

My point is that we are discussing what is recorded in His final days and how the sacramental aspect that is proposed by some interpretations of John 20 has no precursor in the previous 3 and half years. The declarative not sacramental interpretation of john 20 is precursed during the three and half years.

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. They would have seen the practice of the scapegoat many times. They would have heard Jesus talk about the forgiveness of sins.

Please show me where Jesus or the apostles held confessions for folks post baptismal sins ? From my understanding thousands were baptized over a three plus year period, and I am sure some sinned thereafter, before John 20. The forgiveness you mention is done by Jesus, not the apostles, if I recall, and it is declaratory in nature in response to faith. Again, no inkling of a sacramental nature.

It is not true that they would have had to do it before Jesus gave them the power.

Correct. But we are all in agreement that what they did before with Jesus they did afterwards also, but in more power and with a more fulfilled ‘message’.

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.

Yes of course. And that is what we are discussing, how our sins are forgiven. Scripture is explicit it is by acceptance of the gospel , faith in Blood, even baptism. The declarative nature of forgiveness of sins is the gospel. Any other interpretation is implicit at best , but not explicit.

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.

OK , I’ll take that* implication,* as others here have given a few examples of such a thing. But I also said it is very* explicit * and universal that ones sins are retained by rejection of the gospel.

I am sure this makes sense to you but it is, pardon me, gibberish to me.

Understand. I was not satisfied with my explanation either but it is very difficult to separate/explain your truth and error also. Like the error mixes in the water while still leaving it clear. I kindly accept your gibberish word if you will please accept my ‘error’ word.

What doesn’t make sense too is that there is no explanation of why Jesus would say this to borrow from

Understand the scriptures used to show CC point. They would almost have me convinced of her truth. Yet one verse says call the presbyters and anoint the sick, and maybe the Lord will heal, even forgive any sins. The very next verse says “confess” one to another " as in we are all priests. And that is exactly what the first church did. They did not have a confessional or confession time. They had “one another”.

And Matthew has the Son of Man performing miracles, forgiving sins, and that without "confession’ save that of faith. The marveling at men (Christ and the apostles) was not for forgiving sins but for the miracles they “saw” as per vs 6.

Thank you for your well thought out post.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

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

Hang in there PJM,

Debate is still dialogue.

I have not been given any good insight on how to share with you that indeed one can live by every word of God and not be 100% Catholic… or Protestant… or Orthodox.

Indeed am I a rebel after Korah, or after Jesus and the apostles, who also bucked the staus quo, against those that claimed full authority from Abraham and Moses as being their sons
in full tradition? Korah was wrong, as was Israel in rejecting the fullness of Christ thru her traditions, and false doctrines, though still delivering perfectly her (and our) long awaited Savior. Quite a paradox. God perfectly keeps His promises, even of guidance, but sometimes in strange ways. Same old same old. …yesterday, today and tomorrow. God is good and true.

Blessings

 

[eazyduzit]

Does that asnwer your question my friend?

God Bless you,
Patrick

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

Anyone can take a verse out of context and apply where it doesn’t belong. The word “Therefore” means it applies to what has been spoken before in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has described many things that one must do to be Godly, in contrast to what the religious people or Pharasees do. It is not an explanation of how to receive God’s blessings of and by grace.

Later in the passage Jesus does speak of forgiveness and how to receive it. “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you”. This is His word on forgiveness. This does not require a sacrament. It is a simple promise of God. It does not depend on the intervention of an earthly priest. Why do some refuse to believe?

 

[Reuben_J]

Anyone can take a verse out of context and apply where it doesn’t belong. The word “Therefore” means it applies to what has been spoken before in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has described many things that one must do to be Godly, in contrast to what the religious people or Pharasees do. It is not an explanation of how to receive God’s blessings of and by grace.

Agreed it is an exhortation to be perfect.

Later in the passage Jesus does speak of forgiveness and how to receive it. “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you”. This is His word on forgiveness. This does not require a sacrament. It is a simple promise of God. It does not depend on the intervention of an earthly priest. Why do some refuse to believe?

I would see this more as a teaching on forgiveness. We are commanded to forgive. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is not based on this. How could we be forgiven of our own sins, if we, on the other hand, is unforgiving ourselves.

Receiving forgiveness still needs the act of confessing our sin and repent of it. Of course, unforgiving (resentment, revengeful and not willing to forgive) is a sin, and therefore a penitent with this attitude in a Confession would not have his/her sins forgiven, In other word, such a person is not repentance.

 

[blanchardman]

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

God Bless you,

Patrick

If by this yon I don’t agree with the Catholic Church you are correct.
That bring said here is another verse. James 2:23
You could also check out. Romans 4:22-24

 

[blanchardman]

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

God Bless you,

Patrick

If by this yon I don’t agree with the Catholic Church you are correct.
That bring said here is another verse. James 2:23
You could also check out. Romans 4:22-24

 

[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.

And dear friend you hols this view because the Holy Spirit [proven by the thousands of differing faiths Protestant Churches which cannot be merely explained away] and are unable to understand correctly what the bible means; Even those like yourself supposedly trained to do so.]

Here’s the evidence of my calim:
**
Mt. 16: 18-19**
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.

John 17:17-21
[17] Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. [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;

[21] That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

1Mt 28:18-20
[19] Going therefore, teach ye 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 behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

My friend you continue in my prayers

No one part of the Bible can override, invalidate or void another part pf the bible Amen

 

[PJM]

Does that asnwer your question my friend?

God Bless you,
Patrick

Anyone can take a verse out of context and apply where it doesn’t belong. The word “Therefore” means it applies to what has been spoken before in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has described many things that one must do to be Godly, in contrast to what the religious people or Pharasees do. It is not an explanation of how to receive God’s blessings of and by grace.

Later in the passage Jesus does speak of forgiveness and how to receive it. “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you”. This is His word on forgiveness. This does not require a sacrament. It is a simple promise of God. It does not depend on the intervention of an earthly priest. Why do some refuse to believe?

Jer. 7: 22-23
23] But this thing I commanded them, saying: Hearken to my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people: and walk ye in all the way that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you. [24] But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear: but walked in their own will, and in the perversity of their wicked heart: and went backward and not forward"

Exodus 22:31
You shall be holy men to me: the flesh that beasts have tasted of before, you shall not eat, but shall cast it to the dogs.

1 Peter 1:16
Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy

Ephesians 1:4
As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and **unspotted **in his sight in charity

Matthew 19:21
Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me

1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment

1 Corinthians 14:20
Brethren, do not become children in sense: but in malice be children, and in sense be perfect.

2 Corinthians 13:11
For the rest, brethren, rejoice, be perfect, take exhortation, be of one mind, have peace; and the God of peace and of love shall be with you.

2 Timothy 3:17
That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

James 1:4
And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing.

Amen:thumbsup:

 

[PJM]

Well, having your sins forgiven certainly shows,communicates grace to the soul.We just differ on the purpose of the ‘sign’. One says the sign is the way to receive the grace. Another says the sign is taken because grace has already been received. Sacrament or rite ?. One is something you do in the flesh to receive spiritual graces, another to show you have received graces already. Again, for sure confessing is done by grace and does communicate/enable further blessings.

Blessings

Actually one way [Catholicism] is Obeying our God; you’re way is to OK inventing an competing-alternative

God Bless,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Hang in there PJM,

Debate is still dialogue.

I have not been given any good insight on how to share with you that indeed one can live by every word of God and not be 100% Catholic… or Protestant… or Orthodox.

Might that be as I suspect it’s because none exist. Your position has to deny TRUTH itself:

"Truth is the condition of grace; its the source of grace;its the channel of grace it is te Divinely ordained requirement of grace. " Amen! [Fr. John A Hardon]

Indeed am I a rebel after Korah, or after Jesus and the apostles, who also bucked the staus quo, against those that claimed full authority from Abraham and Moses as being their sons
in full tradition? Korah was wrong, as was Israel in rejecting the fullness of Christ thru her traditions, and false doctrines, though still delivering perfectly her (and our) long awaited Savior. Quite a paradox. God perfectly keeps His promises, even of guidance, but sometimes in strange ways. Same old same old. …yesterday, today and tomorrow. God is good and true.

Blessings

God Bless,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Good example as PJM gave another. I think “retain” is not ‘sacramental’ per say (effectual grace) but more in ‘declarative’ or authoritatively proclaiming. Kind of like saying if you continue to shack up unmarried you are still in that sin until you repent…". It is declarative.

As you may know, I feel the ‘remittance’ is also an authoritative proclamation, a declaration, as in proclaiming the gospel and forgiveness of sins thru faith the Blood, and that commission need not be a ‘sacramental’. Another words you see the remittance as post baptismal sacrament and the retaining as post baptismal proclamation, while I see both by pre and post baptismal sins remitted by acceptance of gospel proclamation and retention by rejection of gospel proclamation.

Blessings Reuben

It is that profound BUT not at all complicated:

Catholic Priest are give then Power & Authority to Forgive or under certain [non-contrite] conditions NOT to for the sin and the Sinner:thumbsup:
Mt 10:1-8
Mt 16:18-19
Jn 17:17-20
Mt 28:18-20

Amen!

 

[PJM]

If by this yon I don’t agree with the Catholic Church you are correct.
That bring said here is another verse. James 2:23
You could also check out. Romans 4:22-24

James 2:
[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God

Romans 4:22-24
[21] Most fully knowing, that whatsoever he has promised, he is able also to perform. [22] And therefore it was reputed to him unto justice. [23] Now it is not written only for him, that it was reputed to him unto justice, [24] But also for us, to whom it shall be reputed, if we believe in him, that raised up Jesus Christ, our Lord, from the dead

The Bible is a Catholic Book; we therefore are it’s only GOD guided interpertators

Both logic and Infallibility teach that no one passage can void or override another. Therefore passages that SEEM to contradict; DON’T:thumbsup:

Mt 16:18-19
[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.

John 17: 18-20
[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;

Mt 28:18-20
[18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye 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 behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

My friend; no other Church or faith can make this claim and prive it except the CC. Amen

Patrick

 

[benhur]

]Might that be as I suspect it’s because none exist. Your position has to deny TRUTH itself:

Well, yes by logical thought P’s deny some C and O truth, and C’s deny some P and O truth, and O’s deny some C and P truth. Of course each can claim full truth , but difficult to quantify, qualify.

"Truth is the condition of grace; its the source of grace;its the channel of grace it is te Divinely ordained requirement of grace. "

Of course God is the condition, and source, of grace. Again each ( C’s ,P’s and O’s) can claim to be the channel of grace , but difficult to quantify/qualify.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

It is that profound BUT not at all complicated:

Catholic Priest are give then Power & Authority to Forgive or under certain [non-contrite] conditions NOT to for the sin and the Sinner:thumbsup:
Mt 10:1-8

Mat 10:1-8-Zero mention of sin forgiveness, even as per your sacrament. It is implied as i have been saying , by preaching the Kingdom of God at hand-the gospel, which is about reconciliation or ‘forgiveness of sins’.

Mt 16:18-19

Again zero mention of forgiveness of sins, zero mention of forgiving post baptismal sins. At best you can say Peter and only Peter could decide how to permit or forbid the method of forgiveness, or anything else. Again, from my understanding of CC interpretation, this scripture was for Peter and not the other apostles.

Jn 17:17-20

Again, nothing to do with sin forgiveness.

Mt 28:18-20

yes the great commission. Nothing explicit or implicit on post baptismal sin forgiveness. For sure sin forgiveness thru faith and baptism in the gospel is implied.

Blessings

PS- We are in agreement that the apostles had proper authority and are to be obeyed and followed, which these verses admonish and validate. Now just show me where the apostles taught, practiced post baptismal sacramental confession, beyond declarative forgiveness of sins thru faith in Christ or even baptism.