How do I counter this argument?

[Linkthemissing]

I have not told my father that I’m a catholic, the rest of my family think that they are saint worshiping heathens. My father is a learned man of his Baptist faith, going through collages in theology and so on. On one of the few rants I was listening to was this “the reason why confession to a priest is wrong is that when Christ died on the cross, the tearing of the veil …{Matthew 27:50-51}… signified that we no longer need anything between Man and God. We no longer need a rabbi or priest to act as a go between for forgiveness.” When I tell my family I am a catholic, how can I counter that point?

 

[Redratfish]

john 20:23- If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

James 5:16 - Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

Matthew 18:18-Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[a] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be** loosed in heaven.

I hope this helps!**

 

[runningdude]

Above all, remember that they are your family, and that you deserve their respect. Avoid confrontational arguments. You probably won’t be able to change their minds about the sacraments, but you should expect them not to attack your new found faith.

“Father’s do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” Ephesian’s 6:4

"Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.’ " Mathew 19:14

 

[helplesspilgrim]

I’m not catholic but I have done a lot of studying in my own ongoing search. As someone who was deeply entrenched in protestantism I understand what your father is saying and frankly he does have a point, that was what the ripping of the veil represented. However, as shown in redratfish’s post Christ told us to confess to each other, verses that were never brought up in my previous churches.

The thing that helped me understand the confession to priests the most was actually found in my study and reading of the Orthodox Study Bible; where they state that in the early church confession was too the members of the church one had sinned against, however over time this became way out of hand and often disturbed other liturgical tasks. So confession was decided to be done to a priest, who represented the community. Actually so I do this article justice let me quote part of it directly.

“The Early Christian community had a specific practice in this regard. People would stand and confess their sins to God in the presence of the whole congregation! Had not jesus encouraged his followers to walk in the light together, to confront problems corporately, to “tell it to the church” (Mt. 18:17)? Thus James writes, “Confess your trespasses to one another” (Jam 5:16) But as time went on and the Church grew in numbers, strangers came to visit and public confession became more difficult. Out of mercy, priests began to witness confessions of sin privately on behalf of the church”

As a historical development of the church, done out of mercy and the encouragement of the faithful, it made a lot more sense to me.

 

[catholic1seeks]

As a historical development of the church, done out of mercy and the encouragement of the faithful, it made a lot more sense to me.

WELCOME TO CAF, Helpless Pilgrim! Indeed the ways of Confession have developed throughout history, but the important thing to remember is that Christ gave the leaders of his Church (i.e., the apostles, their successors, and the priests) the authority to forgive sin.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I have not told my father that I’m a catholic, the rest of my family think that they are saint worshiping heathens. My father is a learned man of his Baptist faith, going through collages in theology and so on. On one of the few rants I was listening to was this “the reason why confession to a priest is wrong is that when Christ died on the cross, the tearing of the veil …{Matthew 27:50-51}… signified that we no longer need anything between Man and God. We no longer need a rabbi or priest to act as a go between for forgiveness.” When I tell my family I am a catholic, how can I counter that point?

Hi, Linkthemissing! Hope you like CAF!

See the article
A CONFESSION TO MAKE by Tim Staples. I hope it helps!
Link: catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609btb.asp

Help make the point to your family that Jesus makes himself available in many ways. One of these ways is in his priests, whom Jesus acts through. In Confession, it is Jesus forgiving us. We must remember that the priest has no power of his own to forgive, he forgives in the name of Christ:

Paul says, “And to whom you have pardoned anything, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it *in the person of Christ” *(2 Corinthians 2:10). And so here Paul is forgiving others via Christ. See the above link for more info on this point.

The following may also be helpful, from the article WHY DON’T CATHOLICS GO STRAIGHT TO JESUS (link: catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0604fea4.asp ):

But Paul teaches that Jesus is the one and only mediator between God and us (1 Tim. 2:5), so isn’t the priest an unnecessary intermediary? Shouldn’t Christians confess their sins directly to God?

Catholics do confess their sins directly to God both within and outside the confessional. Jesus advocated praying directly to the Father to ask forgiveness for our sins (Matt. 6:12), and Catholics do this communally at every Mass and in prayer groups, and individually during private prayer. But Catholics also believe that Jesus gave the Church a unique role in his ministry of reconciliation by entrusting it with his power to forgive and retain sins. It is useful to clarify what happens in the sacrament of confession. During confession, the priest perpetuates this ministry by acting in persona Christi, “in the person of Christ.” In other words, when Catholics receive absolution from the priest for sins confessed, it is Jesus’ forgiveness that is granted, not the priest’s.

In addition to the biblical backings of confession, you must also note that the early Church viewed their bishops and priests as having the power to forgive sin. They recognized this sacrament. For example:

In AD 255, Firmilian of Caesarea in Letter to Cyprian, [75, 16] says
But what is his error, and how great his blindness, who says that the remission of sins can be given in the synagogues of the heretics, and who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ, can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: “Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in in heaven, they shall be loosed in heaven; and by this again in the gospel, when Christ breathed upon the Apostles alone, saying to them: “Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any man’s sins, they shall be retained.” Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place.
Notice what’s in bold. Also notice the two biblical passages he sites: Matthew 16:19 and John 20:23. So this early Christian leader viewed these two passages as referring to the Church’s God-given authority to forgive sin.

For more info on the Church Fathers adressing these key biblical passages on Confession, see matt1618.freeyellow.com/fathersconfess.html

Hope this helps,
C1seeks

----------------EDIT>>>

Another article that should be very helpful is
WHY WE HAVE A MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea4.asp

 

[helplesspilgrim]

I didn’t intend to suggest otherwise. However while God operates through the sacraments he is not bound to the sacraments. I was highlighting the historical development of confession from public witness to private witness. Perhaps I should have written out the other paragraph of the article.

“Jesus gave His disciples the authority to forgive sins “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them, if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:33, see also Mt. 16:19), from the beginning the Christians understood that the grace of ordination endowed the shepherd of the flock with the discernment and compassion to speak to words of remission on behalf of Christ regarding the sins of those who confess and turn from sin. For God has promised to remove sin from us “as far as the east is from the west” (Ps 102:12)”

This highlights that it is not through the power of the priest alone that sin if forgiven ( a common protestant allegation towards catholicism). but rather when one is confessing in the witness of the priest, the penentant IS confessing to God. The Priest is witnessing this as a representative of the community, and through the grace of his ordination is able to discern if God has truly forgiven this person confessing, allowing the priest to give the worlds of remission/absolution, thus assuring forgiveness.

 

[catholic1seeks]

This highlights that it is not through the power of the priest alone that sin if forgiven ( a common protestant allegation towards catholicism). but rather when one is confessing in the witness of the priest, the penentant IS confessing to God. The Priest is witnessing this as a representative of the community, and through the grace of his ordination is able to discern if God has truly forgiven this person confessing, allowing the priest to give the worlds of remission/absolution, thus assuring forgiveness.

I agree with everything you say, but what I bolded seems a little iffy. You say the priest is “able to discern if God has truly forgiven…” The Catholic understanding is that, through absolution, the person is actually forgiven. The priest doesn’t merely proclaim the forgiveness to the individual; God actually forgives the person through the priest. Maybe I misunderstood you, so sorry if I’m preachin’ to the choir.

 

[helplesspilgrim]

No I get what your saying, and I have read that before. I guess it’s the difference between an eastern understanding and western, as I understand it. Let me ask you a theoritical question though. If your about to die and no priest is around and you

a) pray to God to forgive you

or

b) confess to a random stranger

in latin theology are you forgiven even though a priest was not there to render absolution?

 

[catholic1seeks]

No I get what your saying, and I have read that before. I guess it’s the difference between an eastern understanding and western, as I understand it. Let me ask you a theoritical question though. If your about to die and no priest is around and you

a) pray to God to forgive you

or

b) confess to a random stranger

in latin theology are you forgiven even though a priest was not there to render absolution?

May I also ask what Christian perspective you come from? Are you an Eastern Catholic, as you say “eastern understanding…” It may help our dialogue.

As to your Q, Catholicism sees that God can forgive someone who has committed mortal sin without recourse to the sacrament of confession if that person has what is called perfect contrition, which is

“Sorrow for sin arising from perfect love. In perfect contrition the sinner detests sin more than any other evil, because it offends God, who is supremely good and deserving of all human love. Its motive is founded on God’s own personal goodness and not merely his goodness to the sinner or to humanity. This motive, not the intensity of the act and less still the feelings experienced, is what essentially constitutes perfect sorrow…Perfect contrition removes the guilt and eternal punishment due to grave sin, even before sacramental absolution.”
THIS IS opposed to Imperfect Confrition, which is defined as “sorrow for sin animated by a supernatural motive that is less than a perfect love of God.” Some of these motives would include things like fear of the pains of hell or loss of Heaven. One is forgiven of a mortal sin in confession even if he only has imperfect contrition.

Link to definitions of perfect vs. imperfect contrition: catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/

And so if I couldn’t go to a priest, but was about to die, and had mortal sin on my soul, I would hope God give me the grace to be sorry for that sin out of complete love of him *. I would be saved. However, if I didn’t die, I should still go to confession.

Hope this helps.*

 

[TimothyH]

I think its a non-starter to argue about the subject of the veil being torn in the context of confession. I just wouldn’t go there.

You probably will not convince a non-Catholic who believes that the normal way to confess sins is in the privacy of his own heart and who sees the veil being torn as proof that we can “Go directly to God.” You can show them proof text after proof text about Catholic confession but unless you present an alternative meaning, you are not going to make any headway and lack of a reasonable alternative might even convince them more that they are correct and that Catholics are wrong.

This is just my thought and welcome other people’s opinion… I think that the veil being torn is a reference, among other things, to our having direct access to God through the Eucharist.

*Therefore, brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary by the new and living way he opened for us through the veil, that is, his flesh, (Hebrews 10:19-20)*God used to dwell in the Jewish temple, specifically in the Holy of Holies. Now God makes his abode in our hearts - dwells in our souls - and that is the new Holy of Holies. Paul calls our soul a “Temple not built of human hands.” The Eucharist fills our interior temple with God’s presence. Paul says that Jesus’ flesh and blood has given us entry into the temple in a “New and living way.” The Eucharist certainly was new and Catholics view Christs sacrifice as living on through the Holy sacrifice of the Mass.

Anyway, I don’t argue the veil being torn in the context of confession.I believe it has more to do with the Eucharist than anything else.

-Tim-

 

[WesleyF]

On one of the few rants I was listening to was this “the reason why confession to a priest is wrong is that when Christ died on the cross, the tearing of the veil …{Matthew 27:50-51}… signified that we no longer need anything between Man and God. We no longer need a rabbi or priest to act as a go between for forgiveness.” When I tell my family I am a catholic, how can I counter that point?

“The veil was a sign that God’s infinite holiness could not be approached by sinners (cf. Heb 9:8). With Jesus’ saving death, forgiveness is secured for man, and access to heaven is reopened (Eph 2:18, Heb 10:19-22)” (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible)

So with the tearing of the veil, we now have access to the Father. Since, we have direct access to the Father, we can pray “Our Father … forgive us our trespasses”. However, the “ordinary” way this forgiveness is applied to us is through the sacrament of reconciliation. This is not because we need a priest or rabbi to act as a go between for forgiveness, but because Christ chose it to be that way. Otherwise it would be superfluous to give power to the apostles to forgive or retain sins (John 20:23), because each person could go directly to God and obtain this forgiveness. How then could the apostles forgive or retain sins if no one came to them for confession but went directly to God?

Also, the Catholic understanding of a Christian (as should be everyone else’ understanding) is that he is a member of Christ’s body (1 Cor 12:27). As a member of Christ’s body, he shares in Christ’s roles in various ways. This was beautifully explained by Patrick Madrid in Any Friend of God Is a Friend of Mine - catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209fea1.asp

So when a Christian prays, for example, “Our Father … forgive us our trespasses”, hey, he is mediating between God and man! Because he is praying not only for himself, but also for his fellow Christians, directly to the Father. But this is possible only because he is a member of Christ’s body and therefore shares in Christ’s unique role as the one mediator between God and man.

In the same way, the priest who is forgiving sins in the confessional is not another mediator between God and man, but rather sharing in that unique role of Christ’s mediatorship. Every sin we commit is a sin not only against Christ, but also in some way against his body, the Church, because it affects us, who are members of the church (1 Cor 12:26). Therefore, it is fitting then, that a member of the church itself, a priest, acting in the person of Christ, forgives us of our sins.

So it is not out of necessity that Catholics have to go to a priest for confession, but it is rather out of obedience to Christ who gave them that authority to forgive. A priest forgiving sins doesn’t act like a barrier between God and man, but rather shows how much God has empowered his own adopted sons to act in the person of his son Jesus Christ to forgive sins.

 

[Todd_Easton]

On one of the few rants I was listening to was this “the reason why confession to a priest is wrong is that when Christ died on the cross, the tearing of the veil …{Matthew 27:50-51}… signified that we no longer need anything between Man and God. We no longer need a rabbi or priest to act as a go between for forgiveness.” When I tell my family I am a catholic, how can I counter that point?

Sacred Scripture does not say what the tearing of the veil of the temple at Christ’s death signified, only that the event happened. Here is what some Catholic commentators have said…

The Catholic Biblical Association’s 1942 book, A Commentary on the New Testament, says:
It is not certain whether this curtain of the temple was the “first curtain” at the entrance of the Holy Place (so St. Jerome), or the “second curtain” (cf. Heb. 9:3) which separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies; nor are Catholic interpreters agreed about the significance of this rending of the curtain: some see in it the visible token of God’s displeasure with Judaism, the abolition of the temple as God’s special abode (cf. Matt. 23:38), etc.; others prefer to understand this as a sign that God then took away the barrier between Jew and Gentile (cf. Eph. 2:14), that all men are admitted to the worship of the true God (cf. Heb. 6:19 f; 9:8; 10:19 f), etc.
The 1859 Haydock Commentary on Matt. 27:51 says that the renting of the curtain(s) of the temple signified, “first, that the ceremonies of the ancient law were to be abolished by the law of Christ; and also that heaven should be open to all.”

Personally, I think the tearing of the veil of the temple meant that the death of Jesus Christ ended the need for any more bloody sacrifices for sin.