How do you view Matthew 16:13 through 20? What does it mean to you?

[MT1926]

Who ever is in covenant with Jesus has the keys.

Not sure how you are coming up with this. No where in scripture does it say who ever is in covenant with Jesus has the keys. As already pointed out nowhere in scripture does it say the keys were given to anyone other than St. Peter.

Could you maybe explain where you are getting this teaching from?

I have signs following. Mark 16:16-20

Not sure where you are going with this? Are you claiming the evidence of the ones, in covenant with Jesus, who hold the keys is drinking poison and not dying?

Math 10;10. Heal the sick raise the dead

Jesus doesn’t even mention the keys until Matthew 16 why do you think the definition of the key holder was given 6 chapters earlier?

Also, Matthew 10 is teaching us about Jesus mission to the 12 Apostles. How are you getting from a teaching directed to the 12 to Jesus gave this same authority to all of us?

When 2 are anointed Christ is in their midst.

Not sure where you are going with this one. I couldn’t find a verse about 2 anointed people.

Thanks for joining the conversation.

God Bless

 

[Sbee0]

ltwin:

How does retaining sin work in the Catholic Church? When does a priest retain sin?

This is an excellent question. I don’t have all of the answers here, but from my own understanding…

From talking in the past as you probably already know as Catholics we believe that we can confess our sins directly to God. However, we also believe that Jesus gave us the Sacrament of confession because confession, penance and reconciliation have always been a part of God’s plan. We believe there is a difference in sin some venial some mortal. We believe Jesus gave us confession, so when the Priest proclaims that we are absolved of our sins we have an outward sign of our inward healing. Something we can’t get when we go directly to God. There is no outward sign, all we are left with is an inward feeling, which I am sure you would agree that our inward feelings aren’t always correct?

Anyway, that being said let me try to answer your question with an example.

I go to my Priest for confession and say I committed sin X. He absolves me of my sin and gives me a penance. Let’s say that penance is something he believes will strengthen me to not commit this sin anymore.

I come back to the Priest and say Father I was weak I did X again. He asks me if I did my penance and how did it work. I say I tried but it was to hard. He tells me to try hard this time absolves me, gives me the same penance and sends me away.

This same thing keeps happening over and over again. So finally he says OK let’s talk this through tell me exactly how you went about trying to do this penance. I reply well Father I didn’t really try that hard, I kept forgetting to do it or didn’t really think about it.

Guess what just might happen this time? SIN RETAINED. The Priest say my son it does not seem to me that you are trying to reconcile yourself to God. I fear that you are endangering your immortal soul based on the OBJECTIVE, not SUBJECTIVE evidence you have shown me with your lack of repentance and your unwillingness to amend for your repetitive sins and your lack of working towards removing yourself from the situations that lead you towards this sin. I would like you to work towards showing me you have a desire to avoid this sin at which time I will offer you forgiveness.

I’m sure there would be a lot more detail the Priest would want have before retaining someone’s sin, but I this kind of shows you that it is not something we take lightly. It’s not like the Priest walks down the Church aisles and with no rhyme nor reason says forgiven, forgiven. forgiven, retained, forgiven, retained, forgiven, etc…

God Bless

Yes. Priests won’t grant absolution (and in fact are obligated NOT to do so) if there is a good reason to suspect that the confessee is not sincerely sorry for their sins and trying to repent from them or their confession is not made with a contrite spirit.

 

[GladTidings]

I think the first thing Jesus did was to breathe upon the apostles, to receive the Holy Ghost.

Ok, clearly the Holy Spirit guides priests so they know what sins to forgive or retain depending on the contrition of the penitent.

unforgiveable sin is to blaspheme that same Holy Ghost.

What do you think this means?

not on going to a confessional…we know for sure that apostles preached…don’t know of them holding confessional

Do you need to see in the bible a passage where Jesus said something like, “I want you apostles to build confessionals”? If I’m not mistaken, the idea of confessional booths came from Ireland a long time ago in order to offer more privacy. It is a discipline or way of doing something without changing the purpose of this sacrament. They were given the authority by Jesus to forgive or retain sins. Jesus not only said to do this, He said, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” It was given from the Father, through Jesus. If you were one of the apostles, would you have said, “yeah, I’m not doing that”?

How were they to know who sinned or what sins to forgive or retain? They had to hear them. People had to confess them.

With Adam and Eve, God said, "why are you hiding from me? He knew they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He wanted them to confess what they had done. Which they did in a round a bout way.

 

[mcq72]

How were they to know who sinned or what sins to forgive or retain? They had to hear them. People had to confess them.

indeed , if appointed men are to forgive sins for sure they must hear them first. Just don’t see across the board confession in OT, or even to Jesus, so not sure why the apostles then would do it.

We all know it is God that forgives, in whom we must first confess to, and not an intermediary.

Yes we confess to those we have injured, and we confess our sins one to another for spiritual health, edification, prayer etc.

Jesus forgave sins, but not necessarily because people confessed, but moreso because they showed faith in the Lamb of God.

 

[mcq72]

Sorry I am not following you here. Once again we are discussing the ability of every Christian to be able to declare someones sin is retained. No ifs, and, or buts in this statement. We are talking about declaring that you are not forgiven by God. Nothing in here about stating you are not forgiven if you don’t repent. or you are not forgiven if you reject the Holy Spirit.

Ok sorry…I was responding to the text of chapter 16 not John 20…not sure binding and loosing is same as forgiving and retaining

As for your tail wagging the dog comment I’m not sure where you are going with this?

this deals with bind/loose , not forgive/retain. So those with keys in OT, rabbis, scribes pharisees(interpetive) were only to obeyed in as far as they were indeed correct on their binding /loosing God’s word.(so the warning to beware of their leaven…bad doctrine, otherwise do everything they say, those who sit in Moses seat)…so the tail does not dictate to the dog, we (those with the keys do not dictate to God independently what is lawful).

After all Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on them. How many times in the Bible did God breath on man? Seems like something pretty powerful probably happen at that time doesn’t it?

Yes…“for He (Holy Ghost) is now with you but will soon be in you”…dispensational change for all of us…we all now have across the board indwelling, as well as giftings as evidenced on Pentecost and and thereafter.

 

[mcq72]

Luther’s last sentence here does not state that every member can say " if you knowingly and willingly reject the Holy Spirit" then I declare the retention of your sins.

Correct , technically speaking. He wrote"gospel" , I wrote “Holy Spirit”…yet in spirit it is coherent… rejecting the gospel is not rejecting the Holy Ghost ? Can it be forgiven to reject the gospel in your “final answer” ?

he is trying to show they are meaningless and insignificant.

Well, he might be trying to deinstitutionalize elements of spiritual realities. Indeed God forgives sins, but now only thru a priest ?

yet you go to far, create a false interpretation, a strawman. Reminds of some that post that if one does not believe in immaculate conception or in co redemptrix we do not love Mary, nor honor her blessed amongst women.

What preaching the gospel , carrying the great commission is “meaningless and insignificant” ? Does something have to be priestly to be significant , as if the priesthood of all believers is…insignificant ?

Once again you don’t see it because no one is claiming it. It’s a straw man argument has nothing to do with the claims Luther is making.

well …have not read all posts , so not sure what needs defending…seems the Luther quote speaks for itself…I see as contrasting to Catholic understanding , or am I wrong on that ?

 

[mcq72]

As already pointed out nowhere in scripture does it say the keys were given to anyone other than St. Peter.

yes, Tertullilian said so also , and decried any form of Peter then handing keys off , and that to only one bishop of Rome.

 

[GladTidings]

so not sure why the apostles then would do it.

Because Jesus said to do so. He ascended to heaven and knew man would continue to fall into sin. Priests act in persona Christi, or in the person of Christ. In Luke 10:16 Jesus says to the disciples, “He who hears you, hears me, he who rejects you, rejects me.” Do you think the disciples were like, “this forgiving and retaining is bunk”?

 

[GladTidings]

It is interesting that the unforgiveable sin is to blaspheme that same Holy Ghost.

What do you think this means? What is your definition of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

 

[MT1926]

Ok sorry…I was responding to the text of chapter 16 not John 20…not sure binding and loosing is same as forgiving and retaining

No problem it just gets a little confusing when I thought you were jumping into what we were discussing. I actually agree with you here. But from Luther’s statements he seems, from the way I read, to minimize the power of the keys to mean only binding and loosing and then further minimize this to mean forgiving and retaining sins.

Yes…“for He (Holy Ghost) is now with you but will soon be in you”…dispensational change for all of us…we all now have across the board indwelling, as well as giftings as evidenced on Pentecost and and thereafter.

I can agree here, but I don’t think this extends to the point of every Christian having the keys and the power to forgive or retain sins, as Luther seems to claim.

Correct , technically speaking. He wrote"gospel" , I wrote “Holy Spirit”…yet in spirit it is coherent… rejecting the gospel is not rejecting the Holy Ghost ? Can it be forgiven to reject the gospel in your “final answer” ?

Doesn’t really matter if he wrote gospel. The point still stands. He made a claim that all Christians have keys and can forgive and retain sins. He does this to minimize the authority given by Jesus to the Priests. Then when it’s time to defend his claim he cunningly changes the subject to be about the gospel message and never defends his claim.

 

[MT1926]

Well, he might be trying to deinstitutionalize elements of spiritual realities. Indeed God forgives sins, but now only thru a priest ?

I never made the claim God can only forgive sins through a priest. Not sure where you are coming up with this, I actually explained that Catholics can, should and do confess directly to God. Scroll up it’s in a post up above.

yet you go to far, create a false interpretation, a strawman.

Please quote my posts from up above that has the straw man argument you are accusing me of making.

What preaching the gospel , carrying the great commission is “meaningless and insignificant” ? Does something have to be priestly to be significant , as if the priesthood of all believers is…insignificant ?

I never made any of these claims, please quote what I said that led you to believe this is what I believe.

I’ve already told you more than once we are discussing Luther’s attempt to minimize the significance of the keys and the fact that all Christians have the ability to forgive and retain sins. Why on earth would I make claims about the priesthood when we are discussing the members here?

well …have not read all posts , so not sure what needs defending…seems the Luther quote speaks for itself…I see as contrasting to Catholic understanding , or am I wrong on that ?

Of course Luther would contrast the Catholic understanding. If you would take the time to go back and read you would see we aren’t talking about how his quotes differ from Catholic theology and who is correct. We are discussing how Luther contradicts himself in his own writings. How he makes an argument then when he goes to defend his argument he changes the subject slightly and defends the new subject. He never explains his original claim, I believe because they don’t make sense when thought through to their logical conclusion.

If there is a particular subject you would like to discuss I am game. But it seems we are going back and forth because we are not talking about the same subject here.

God Bless

 

[kainosktisis]

I think maybe Luther forgot or wasn’t aware of Isaiah 22:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/isaiah/22:19

SHEBNA AND ELIAKIM
15
Thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts:
Up, go to that official,
Shebna,* master of the palace,
16
“What have you here? Whom have you here,
that you have hewn for yourself a tomb here,
Hewing a tomb on high,
carving a resting place in the rock?”
17
The LORD shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man!
He shall grip you firmly,
18
And roll you up and toss you like a ball
into a broad land.
There you will die, there with the chariots you glory in,
you disgrace to your master’s house!
19
I will thrust you from your office
and pull you down from your station.
20
On that day I will summon my servant
Eliakim,* son of Hilkiah;e
21
I will clothe him with your robe,
gird him with your sash,
confer on him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.f
22
I will place the key* of the House of David on his shoulder;
what he opens, no one will shut,
what he shuts, no one will open.g
23
I will fix him as a peg in a firm place,
a seat of honor for his ancestral house;
24
On him shall hang all the glory of his ancestral house:*
descendants and offspring,
all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.
25
On that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg fixed in a firm place shall give way, break off and fall, and the weight that hung on it shall be done away with; for the LORD has spoken.

 

[mcq72]

did Luther continue to hold confessional ? now that would seem to be contradictory to his quoted text…thank you for being patient

 

[MT1926]

did Luther continue to hold confessional ? now that would seem to be contradictory to his quoted text…thank you for being patient

I don’t really know the answer to this question. It seems in some of his writings he did hold confessions, for those that desire it, however he seems to make it known that it is not necessary.

I don’t have a problem with stating this is Luther’s opinion. Hey we all have free will and we can make any opinion we want about anything. The Problem I have with Luther (Luther’s Works volume 77) is his writings show his sermons on confession like his sermon I found on John 20:23.

First he quotes only half of the verse… “whosesoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven to them” then goes off on an explanation of of how the Pope’s theologians are wrong about this meaning we actually have to acknowledge the actual sin we committed to obtain forgiveness. He continues we teach confession is to be used as a means to hear the comfort of the Gospel to strengthen our faith in the forgiveness of sins?

Sure I agree with what Luther says. Confession should strengthen out faith. This is a true statement here. However, what does this have to do with the interpretation of what Jesus meant in John 20:23?

He goes on to say confession does not mean to count up you sins it means to confess that we are sinners? Nothing more should be demanded or imposed on us about naming sins.

Sure we should confess that we are sinners, but to not acknowledge to God what you did? Seriously? Where in John 20 is that taught? How are the Apostles suppose to forgive a sin that they don’t hear? Imagine trying this one on your wife let alone God?

If you don’t have to admit what your actual sin is, as Luther claims, do you honestly believe you are contrite?

Which husband is contrite?

Honey I am sorry that I committed some sins against you will you forgive me?
or
Honey I have wronged you and am not worthy of your forgiveness. I committed adultery and have sinned against God and against you. I know I am not deserving of your love and forgiveness, but I beg of you to forgive me and give me the chance to sin no more.

Contrition can’t happen unless we confront our sins, regardless of what Luther claims here…

You yourself could the point out something which especially burdens your conscience, for which you need instruction and advice or special comfort, as it is often necessary for young, inexperienced people.

I would love to know what he truly meant here. It has been said that Luther suffered from scrupulosity I wonder if his scrupulosity is the inexperience he was addressing here.

God Bless

 

[GladTidings]

It is interesting that the unforgiveable sin is to blaspheme that same Holy Ghost.

What do you think blasphemy of the Holy Spirit means?

 

[mcq72]

What do you think blasphemy of the Holy Spirit means?

Rejecting Christ, as revealed by Holy Ghost who convicts us of sin, righteousness and judgement to come, three elements forming backbone of spiritual birth…reject the Holy Spirit and you reject bridge needed to reconcile for sins against the Father and His sent Son.

 

[mcq72]

Sure we should confess that we are sinners, but to not acknowledge to God what you did?

Is Luther speaking of confessing to God or to a priest or fellow believer here? Is he talking about the sacrament of penance or a non believer coming to Calvary for the first time, even water baptism, as responding to gospel message?

I know when I first responded in positive way to the apostles gospel message what weighed most heavily to confess, repent of, was unbelief, the fruit of a soul at emnity with God and Christ Himself (and His “disciples”). That was the million dollar issue, not breaking the other of the ten commandments ( nickel dime issues pointing to the million dollar issue). That was the pivotal focal point of either all my sins being forgiven or not.

 

[MT1926]

Is Luther speaking of confessing to God or to a priest or fellow believer here? Is he talking about the sacrament of penance or a non believer coming to Calvary for the first time, even water baptism, as responding to gospel message?

Yes you got it. That is exactly my point. It doesn’t seem like Luther can give a straight answer to the question. It seems like he has his own personal theology made up in his mind and he is incapable of explaining it with a straight answer.

See I believe this is his plan all along. He fooled you. Even after I pointed it out to you, you still scratched your head and had to ask me… You sure Luther is speaking of confession to a priest here.

He is obviously speaking out in this homily about confession to a priest here. If he wasn’t then what was the point of lashing out against the Pope’s theologians being wrong in saying we have to acknowledge the actual sins we committed. It’s fairly obvious that he isn’t speaking of converts or baptism here. Yet his words are so confusing that you aren’t sure what he is addressing.

That’s the whole point I am trying to make. Confusion and blurring the lines on the issues is the whole basis of Luther’s theology. He makes it sound so convincing but when you read it and think about what he says you scratch your head in confusion and think are you the only one that this sounds weird to? Which makes you not want to question his sketchy theology in fear of embarrassment that you might look stupid.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Not sure i am "fooled’ by Luther.I am asking because you have read his writings I have not. I don’t believe he totally strayed from all Catholic thought. I mean for sure there is the priesthood of all, and for sure there are presbyters. I would just say not to the same extent. I think Luther was taking it down a notch or two, this division of priests. Not so sure Luther is duplicitous on anything. The catholic church has had certain struggles also , defining heirarchal roles, and just who has authority, such as bishops in council vs the authority of the pope, and who has the last say etc etc…she also says a lay person can perform certain sacraments, if no priest is around etc etc. I think Itwin said it perfectly in one of his posts.“They simply exercise an authority common to all on behalf of all.”

as to confession, seems Luther believes in it, but not quite sacramentally, or "institutional’’, save for what we already know thru Christ and His church, and what we believe in baptism…and like Catholics, we are reminded that it is really Christ himself who forgives, even absolves, as reminded by another “priest/brethren”…fine line between one reminding and one seeming to actually absolve, even in place of Christ.

Again, for me, bottom line, the apostles did not hear confessions as would later, much later, become the church’s custom.

 

[MT1926]

Not sure i am "fooled’ by Luther.I am asking because you have read his writings I have not. I don’t believe he totally strayed from all Catholic thought.

I apologize for saying you were fooled. I just figured since you keep making comments like “you don’t believe he strayed” that you have read some of his writings.

Not so sure Luther is duplicitous on anything.

How do you know? Is this just an opinion you form because you have a desire to defend his teachings? No offense but you are defending a man that you have no idea what he taught. The only thing you know is what you were told he stood for. Am I correct here?

The catholic church has had certain struggles also , defining heirarchal roles, who has authority, bishops in council vs the authority of the pope, and who has the last say etc etc…

What does any of this have to do with our discussion at hand? Is this your opinion or do you have some evidence?

as to confession, seems Luther believes in it, but not quite sacramentally, or "institutional’’, save for what we already know thru Christ and His church,

This is exactly what I am talking about. Luther quotes John 20:23. Then goes on to point out the Catholic Church misinterpreted this verse. This way everyone concentrates on those evil Catholics. Then instead of giving us the interpretation of what Christ means here, he goes on and states similar to what you state “we already know through Christ and His church”. Basically, he is saying this verse is meaningless because it can’t mean what the Catholic Church thinks it means because if it does then it would contradict what I already know. So I’m just going to conveniently quote the verse but skip the interpretation and hope nobody notices.

So my question is what do we know, through Christ and His Church, what the correct interpretation of John 20 is?

and like Catholics, we are reminded that it is really Christ himself who forgives, even absolves

I do agree This is a true statement.

fine line between one reminding and one seeming to actually absolve, even in place of Christ.

This I don’t. Could you maybe define what this “fine line” is?

I’m wondering if the confusion here is you think Catholics believe Christ is incapable of forgiving sins except through the Priest? Christ didn’t institute the Sacrament of confession for His benefit, He did it for ours.

If you can so easily diminish the teaching of the Priest (in place of Christ) as only “SEEMING” to actually absolve a persons sins. How could you not believe that you personally might only be “SEEMING” to actually be contrite for your sins? Do you believe Christ forgives our sins even if we have not repented in our hearts?

continued…