Heb 13:17 describes the Sacrament of Confession

[guanophore]

What were we talking about, again???

I was talking about the private interpretation in the original post on the thread, and registering my disagreement of your assertion that private interpretation is prohibited.

Private interpretation is only a problem when it is done in isolation from the Teachings of the Church,and is inconsistent with them. I recommended this link on Catholic Answers that states private interpretation is permissible so long as it is not against the Teachings of the Church.

Lectio Divina is also a form of private interpretation that is strongly recommended to Catholics. There are official Vatican sources that affirm that private interpretation of Scripture helps us to grow in holiness.

I think the private interpretation given in the OP reflects this kind of reflection on Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t quite understand you outrage and indignation, which doesn’t seem to relate to my or the originator’s post.

There are numerous scriptural references for the sacrament of penance, all I am saying is this verse is not one of them.

It can be for him, if he sees it that way. There is no infallible teaching from the Church on this verse, so as long as his private interpretation does not contradict the Teachings of the Faith, he can read it that way.

Since it is a private interpretation, though, you and I are not compelled to understand it that way.

 

[po18guy]

I was talking about the private interpretation in the original post on the thread, and registering my disagreement of your assertion that private interpretation is prohibited.

I clarified in post 53. What Peter wrote against was the manner in which the ignorant and unstable misinterpreted the scriptures. From the catechism:

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit’s action’ (cf. Origen, Hom. in Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320).

75 Cf. DV 12 § 1.
77 DV 12 § 3.
88 DV 12 § 3.
89 St. Augustine, Contra epistolam Manichaei, 5,6L 42,176.

 

[po18guy]

Back to the assertion of the thread title: I do not believe that this verse is necessarily describing the Sacrament, but it is entirely consistent with the believer’s action and intent in submitting to the Sacrament.

 

[De_Maria]

I was talking about the private interpretation in the original post on the thread, and registering my disagreement of your assertion that private interpretation is prohibited.

Here’s what he said:

So, you are a Lutheran then? They use the same bible. Or are you an Episcopalian? A Methodist? A Presbyterian? A Quaker? A Southern Baptist? A Seventh Day Adventist? Any of the 3,000 or so other denominations?

They all use the same “clear and unambiguous” scripture and they all disagree. Scripture needs authoritative interpretation, otherwise “private interpretation” would not be condemned by the bible. Yes, it’s in there.

Here’s what Scripture says:
2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Point out the exact verbiage with which a Catholic would disagree.

It seems to me that, in sports lingo, he made a slam dunk statement which could not be refuted by any Protestant. But instead of giving him a high five, you tried to steal his thunder and undermiined his position, making it seem as though he had said something wrong. When in fact, he was right on the money.

You keep harping on about the matter but the fact is that in order for you had to tear the words “private interpretation” out of the context in which he was writing. And then you had to fit them into a context where you prresumed his bad faith against the Catholic Church. In other words, you made a strawman argument and knocked it down, pretending that you were arguing against po18guy. But po18guy said nothing which could be remotely associated with your straw man.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Back to the assertion of the thread title: I do not believe that this verse is necessarily describing the Sacrament, but it is entirely consistent with the believer’s action and intent in submitting to the Sacrament.

Thanks. I agree completely with that statement.

Something which I’ve been considering recently, is that St. Paul and the other author’s of Scripture wrote before the language of our Faith was standardized. Therefore, there are things which sound strange and yet, if we look at the elements of our doctrine, such as the Sacraments, we can find something which could be described therein.

For instance, St. Paul mentions something called the “doctrine of Baptisms”. Note the plural. Baptisms. Our Church only, officially, recognizes one Baptism. So, to what could St. Paul have been referring?

I think it is the Seven Sacraments. If we look at each Sacrament, we find that they each produce an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. What is a word which describes an outpouring of the Holy Spirit? Baptism.

So, how do we reconcile the fact that the Church speaks of One Baptism?

It is simple. There are many forms of Baptism. But there is only one Baptism which occurs in each.

What is the Baptism of Blood? What does it mean? It means that a man who dies in the name of Christ is bathed by the Holy Spirit.

What is the Baptism of Desire? What does it mean? It means that a man who dies desiring the Sacrament of Baptism, will receive the Baptism of the Spirit in the after life.

What is the Baptism of water? What does it mean? It means that a man who wants his sins washed away calling on the name of Christ, will receive from the Church a bath of water with the word and if he believes and is baptized, he will be saved.

What are the other Sacraments? What do they mean? Each one carries a specific blessing, but each of those blessings is effected by the action of the Holy Spirit. Essentially, each one can be described as a Baptism.

Are any other ourpourings of the Holy Spirit, i.e. Baptisms recognized by the Catholic Church? Yes.

The one which underlies all of the previously mentioned. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit. God’s spirit blows where it will. Unbeknownst to us, any man, Christian or not, may be baptized by God when God wills it appropriate. Whether it be in this life or the next. As the Scripture says:
Acts 10:33-35
King James Version (KJV)
33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.

**34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. **

My point, however, is that the language of our faith was not yet formulated at the time that the Apostles and disciples wrote the New Testament. Therefore, it is our knowledge of the Traditions which helps us to understand their meaning. Christ did not write the New Testament, He established a Church and deposited within it the truths of His Faith, in the form of oral Tradition. After a few years, the Church wrote down that Tradition and it is now known as the New Testament.

Does that make sense?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Augustine3]

I’m curious, how do Protestants interpret these verses?

**“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” – John 20:23

“Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.” – James 5:16**

 

[guanophore]

I’m curious, how do Protestants interpret these verses?

“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” – John 20:23

I’ve heard some real crazy twists of this one. The most common is that the Aposltes were charged with preaching the Gospel, and when people who are destined for salvation hear the Gospel, they are saved and their sins are forgiven. If they failed to preach the gospel the sins of the people would be "retained’ because they did not have the opportunity.

De Maria has spent a lot more time on Protestant sites so probably has heard more.

“Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.” – James 5:16

This one they are careful to take out of context. Their Bibles don’t say “priest” but “elders of the Church” should be called for prayer over the sick, and they are careful to point out that it says "one another’ not “confess to the Elder”.

Many Catholics do not realize that reconciliation is a sacrament of healing, and that God set up auricular confession because it is essential for healing the guilt and shame that comes with sin.

 

[po18guy]

I’m curious, how do Protestants interpret these verses?

**“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” – John 20:23

“Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.” – James 5:16**

Heck, throw in 2 Cor 2:10 as in the D-R or KJV.

2 Corinthians 2:10
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
10 And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

2 Corinthians 2:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;

I ask: what has changed, God’s revealed truth, or man’s opinion of that truth?

 

[guanophore]

Heck, throw in 2 Cor 2:10 as in the D-R or KJV.

2 Corinthians 2:10
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
10 And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

2 Corinthians 2:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;

I ask: what has changed, God’s revealed truth, or man’s opinion of that truth?

I think this entire concept is lost on evangelicals and fundamentalists. High Church protestants (Anglican) that retained notion of priesthood and Lutherans get it, but not at the same level the Apostle’s believed and taught.

I think Americans have a particular trouble with submitting to authority. We seem to have this innate sense of “don’t tread on me” and a politically inherited aversity toward obedience.

 

[po18guy]

I think this entire concept is lost on evangelicals and fundamentalists. High Church protestants (Anglican) that retained notion of priesthood and Lutherans get it, but not at the same level the Apostle’s believed and taught.

I think Americans have a particular trouble with submitting to authority. We seem to have this innate sense of “don’t tread on me” and a politically inherited aversity toward obedience.

Exactly right. America (as a nation) was founded by ex-patriate Europeans who had rebelled against the Church. That influence is still observed in the individuality that is a peculiar American trait. The Marlboro man would be an evangelical or fundamentalist.

 

[guanophore]

Exactly right. America (as a nation) was founded by ex-patriate Europeans who had rebelled against the Church. That influence is still observed in the individuality that is a peculiar American trait. The Marlboro man would be an evangelical or fundamentalist.

It is ironic that the Puritans and other Christians that came here were so hostile and intolerant of Catholics. Once the shoe was on the other foot, the intolerance was still in full swing. I remember when Kennedy was elected that many people were still scared he would be more loyal to the pope than the US.

I think the cultural inheritance of individuality and the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness sometimes flies in the face of the Christian notion that true liberty is found in obedience and submission to God.

 

[po18guy]

It is ironic that the Puritans and other Christians that came here were so hostile and intolerant of Catholics. Once the shoe was on the other foot, the intolerance was still in full swing. I remember when Kennedy was elected that many people were still scared he would be more loyal to the pope than the US.

I think the cultural inheritance of individuality and the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness sometimes flies in the face of the Christian notion that true liberty is found in obedience and submission to God.

Since WWII, we seem to have striven toward death, license and the pursuit of devolution

 

[guanophore]

Since WWII, we seem to have striven toward death, license and the pursuit of devolution

If more Catholics would practice the sacrament of reconciliation as the OP has outlined it, I bet we could get this country turned around.

 

[po18guy]

If more Catholics would practice the sacrament of reconciliation as the OP has outlined it, I bet we could get this country turned around.

Who was it that opined that we have lost the sense of sin? Do we need a 12 step program to lead back to the Sacrament? First, one must admit that there is a problem.

 

[guanophore]

Who was it that opined that we have lost the sense of sin? Do we need a 12 step program to lead back to the Sacrament? First, one must admit that there is a problem.

That would be Archbiship Schwietz.

Did you know he was speaking on the Sacrament of Reconciliation, or did the Spirit just lead you into that?