Do you have questions about Catholic beliefs & Practices

[Michael68]

Even the Pope?

Yes, even the Pope

 

[drac16]

Yes, even the Pope

Wow, that’s interesting. Thanks, Michael and Jharek.

 

[Michael68]

Wow, that’s interesting. Thanks, Michael and Jharek.

Pope Francis talked with a homeless priest in Rome. The priest asked the Pope to hear his confession. Pope Francis told him “only if you hear mine first”. They were then given privacy.

 

[Reuben_J]

IF I may add some clarification here

Sacramental Baptism as one of its cheif effects is to remove ALL is including Original sin which can ONLY be removed through Christian Baptism AND all the effects of those sins [committed before sacramental baptism/ not after].including the “Temporal Punishment” all sins incurs. Therefore Sacramental is NOT be needed either Prior to OR as a “part-of” Sacramental Baptism.

SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION is for man’s POSSIBLE salvation for sin-forgiveness AFTER Baptism; if and when SINS are committed.

Thanks for the clarification, bro PJM.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben J:

Catholicism encompasses a culture so diverse; often we do not know what the others are doing.

AGAIN: WHAT “others” AND WHAT is it you mean to infer by Catholicism being "diverse?’

@ PJM and Michael68. Sorry it was not clear and obviously my wrong choice of word. I was meant to say that Catholicism was made up of Catholics of various races and nationalities and therefore diverse ethnic cultures.

The picture in questions which was posted was probably a derivation of a particular culture from a particular ethnic background which was definitely not a standard Catholic practice or liturgy. I was not sure what that really was and therefore unable to make an informed comment on it.

 

[Reuben_J]

Do priests confess their sins to other priests? (in a sacramental sense, so as to receive forgiveness from God)

Today basically all clergies, up to the Popes are priests. Some Cardinals were used to be appointed from the laities in the middle ages but not now.

Having said that, priests except for their priestly ordination and function as administrators of the Sacraments are still very much ordinary human beings. As such, like all humans do, they are tempted and sinned and therefore need to go for confession, the process being to tell one’s committed sins and then asking for forgiveness.

The late Pope John Paul II, now a saint, went to confession very regularly, perhaps much more often than many of us the laities. When one goes for confession and live a life of holiness, one would recognize even more sins in one’s life that need to be confessed. Thus most ‘holy people’ just feel the need to be set free from their sins that strangle their souls.

 

[adrift]

SORRY friend; BUT just what is it you’d like me to comment on? Please let me know.

God Bless you,

Patrick

Don’t know why you think I wanted you to comment on it.

In His Grace View posted Luther was correct regarding justification.

The link was in answer. Luther was not correct as the link shows

 

[adrift]

AGAIN: WHAT “others” AND WHAT is it you mean to infer by Catholicism being "diverse?’

We have many different cultural expressions of faith that as Catholics we don’t know them all For instance Quinceañera celebrated in the Spanish culture. The posting was of a statue covered with money. It isn’t a universal practice but it does show the diversity of the faith being practiced.

 

[adrift]

Do priests confess their sins to other priests? (in a sacramental sense, so as to receive forgiveness from God)

If I remember what our priest said is that they are required to confess once a month.

I have heard the Pope goes daily.

 

[PJM]

Do priests confess their sins to other priests? (in a sacramental sense, so as to receive forgiveness from God)

Yes; even so does the Pope:thumbsup:

 

[PJM]

thank you

You’re most welcome friend

 

[PJM]

Thanks for the clarification, bro PJM.

You are very welcomed my friend,

Parrick

 

[PJM]

@ PJM and Michael68. Sorry it was not clear and obviously my wrong choice of word. I was meant to say that Catholicism was made up of Catholics of various races and nationalities and therefore diverse ethnic cultures.

The picture in questions which was posted was probably a derivation of a particular culture from a particular ethnic background which was definitely not a standard Catholic practice or liturgy. I was not sure what that really was and therefore unable to make an informed comment on it.

Thanks and continued Blessings,

Parrick

 

[PJM]

Today basically all clergies, up to the Popes are priests. Some Cardinals were used to be appointed from the laities in the middle ages but not now.

Having said that, priests except for their priestly ordination and function as administrators of the Sacraments are still very much ordinary human beings. As such, like all humans do, they are tempted and sinned and therefore need to go for confession, the process being to tell one’s committed sins and then asking for forgiveness.

The late Pope John Paul II, now a saint, went to confession very regularly, perhaps much more often than many of us the laities. When one goes for confession and live a life of holiness, one would recognize even more sins in one’s life that need to be confessed. Thus most ‘holy people’ just feel the need to be set free from their sins that strangle their souls.

Nicely done, thank you & God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Don’t know why you think I wanted you to comment on it.

In His Grace View posted Luther was correct regarding justification.

The link was in answer. Luther was not correct as the link shows

Thanks for the clairification:thumbsup:

 

[benhur]

NO I did not mean that specific and PRECISE teachings od which there are MANY so well written that they need to be ignored because they can’t possibly be refuted any other way:

One God; Faith and Church

Primacy of Peter

Infallibility on ALL Faith beliefs and Moral Teachings

The Real Presence

Sacramental Confession for sin forgiveness

Being the one’s that come quickly to my mind [such as it is]

These teaching NOT to be understood as being the obvious teachings in the bible CANNOT be be guided as assumed by the HS; who being God cannot participate in Lies.

I hope my friend that is clear enough for you:shrug:

Crystal clear. I would add that truth is absolute indeed. Only one can be right, yet wisdom and love can help on what to do, even understand, beyond that.

What “YOU” [representing here our Protestant Brethren] FREELY choose to believe has NO EFFECT on what is God;s truth. NONE! Check out the teaching at the bottom of each of MY post. Neither unbelieve or WRONG understanding of TRUTH; changes THAT truth:thumbsup:

Correct, truth can stand alone, apart from our interpretations, even heralding (though then who shall hear it?).

IF as IS the case here; “that person” were YOUR God or that God’s directly appointed channel to SHARE HIS Truth; I would respectfully SUGGEST that you Listen UP! It’s your soul; your salvation being PUT at risk.

Yes, thank you. You shall certainly not have my possible demise on your hands. You have done well according to your faith in warning me.

“After all, all interpretations believe that it is thru the Blood and promise of it’s effectualness that any sin is absolved. This is what the priest/confessional represents, and that is what any private or interpersonal confession one also represent. We all plead the Blood. But I understand your position that He has chosen/ordained your ,CC’s, method”-Ben Hur

**NO!

That is NOT what the role of the PRIEST IS:

THE ROLE OF THE PRIEST IN THIS PRECISE EXAMPLE TO TO BE EXACTLY WHAT HE IS" ALTER-CHRISTI" Another Christ! That is the intent and the accomplished deed of Jesus Christ. Amen!**

Yes, thank you for furthering the what I said. I have understood that the priest stands or actually is if Christ were there. That is what a disciple is, one who does what the Master did. Even declare “arise and be healed” , or " your sins are forgiven".

“Actually the baptism of John also included remission of sins, and I think it says that in one or two of the gospels”-BenHur

WHERE EXACTLY?.[IN a manner other than the OT MODEL as I shared]

“John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” Mark 3:4. Of course it was not in the manner of Jesus/apostles, or in His name, as in present sense but obviously in future sense of the One who was about to come(and I see no effectual difference, that is I do not think that if you were baptized by John that you then needed to be re baptized by the apostles when then finding Jesus). And we are not sure after Christ was baptized by John that John changed the “formula”, or baptized in the name of Jesus thereafter. After all, halfway thru his ministry John saw that the Promised One was “here” and named “Jesus”.

Blessings

 

[blanchardman]

Here I am apologizing to everyone yet again. I fell of the wagon again yesterday and posted when I was drunk. Please pray that God will grant me the grace to stay sober for the rest of my life. Again, my apologizes to all.

You have my prayers and forgiveness. I was there 36 years ago.

 

[benhur]

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the clarification and the honesty in the post.

I am glad to note the areas where you understood the position of the Catholic Church, so that they would not need any more rehashing. And you stated your position too.

I can only add, don’t know whether this is a bias or not, but I would agree with what PJM said: that Baptism and Confession were two separate activities (we call them Sacraments now).

Hi Reuben. Thank you , and sorry if answering you last.

Yes, understand the CC’s two,separate sacraments . Yes, I do think sin retention /remittance is thru the “gospel” , but I also think a few scriptures deal with obvious confession after baptism (confess your faults one to another). That is, of course we need to confess sins done as a Christian as led by the Lord, after baptism.

You seemed to admit that it was not explicit that confession was done before baptism in Mt3:6. I would concur, at least as far as that verse is concerned, simple because it is not stated explicitly. I would take it from PJM, that it was a possibility (my own deduction) that baptism and confession were two separate activities. John baptized and there were also confession. If this happened, then confession was as much an activity done in pre-Jesus time.

Actually I thought it was explicit that John’s baptism was for sin forgiveness. What I presumed was that confession was done before immersion. Remember, I have been saying post baptismal forgiveness is not necessarily ‘sacramental’. If folks confessed their sins just after John’s water baptism, just after immersion , one could technically say there is sacramental post baptismal forgiveness.

You asked for explicitness in the Bible to support a given doctrine. Personally I find problem in this approach. As been mentioned earlier, not every belief that Christianity has now is explicitly stated in the Bible, example such as the Trinity. I would say further, that the Bible is not a book of doctrine which makes us Catholics differ very much with those who believe it is so. I am not sure whether those are in the category of Sola Scriptura but in any case, we oppose to that approach.

Understand. Sacred Tradition is equally authoritative to Holy Writ in the CC.

Explicitly? I have not seen any writings that have it the way the Sacrament of Confession is done now. But I am not learned in this subject, especially that of the Early Church Fathers. But was any confession took place? The answer was obviously yes.

Now thank you for your honesty.

John 20:23 is still very authoritative on the Sacrament of Confession, one we cannot overlook in its importance. PJM explained that very well. My important take on it is that, I repeat, it makes no sense for the apostles (and their successors) not to carry out what Jesus had sent them out to do.

Yes , that verse is authoritative to the CC in showing foundation for her sacrament. Again, no one is denying forgiveness of sin , both pre baptismal nor post baptismal. We all agree that the apostles, and their successors down to us, are obedient in carrying this out, though it was given not so much as a command , but a declarative fact in John 20. What was a command was the Great Commission, and sin retention/remittance is a direct result from obedience to* that *command.

We just differ on how this (John 20:23) is done/interpreted. Both interpretations would say they result in sin retention/remittance. Hopefully as I see the CC’s sense of the matter, may you see the ‘other’ sense also, that it makes sense also though you respectfully disagree.

Blessings

 

[blanchardman]

OK:shrug:

So what my friend is your understanding of “God and His Word”/

I’m not trying to be difficult; but we don’t agree and I’m trying to understand exactly where and WHY that is

God Bless you
Patrick

I do not know hpw to take this question. I would think it would be self explanatory.

 

[blanchardman]

Patrick,
Now for the subject of the post that started our debate on imputed righteousness.

Purgatory :
John 20:30-31 & 21: 24-25 speaks of His works not about any teachingd.
Lev 22:21 the offering is perfect (Jesus)
Matt 5:48 The new testament believers attained this in this life.
1John 3:2-3 It is our hope (faith) in Him and His return that purifies us.

This leaves Rev 21:27 and 1Cor 3:13-14
These are events that happen after Jesus returns.