If the priesthood of all believers rejects heirarchy, why have a leadership structure?

[Vonsalza]

As I said, the greatest thing that could occur is reconciliation and full communion between the EO and Rome.

Spot-on.

I think the RCC and the EO should do a combined council on how Adam’s heir interacted with the other heads-of-household of their days. I think they should look at how the Levitical high-priest interacted with the other priests at temple.

The model for reunification is there. I wish we’d both reach for it.

 

[JonNC]

=Vonsalza;14566355]looks at all the different and conflicting “Christian” groups

Matthew 22 ** “Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. 38This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.”**

I’m not sure that’s true. It’s not a problem when you acknowledge an original, apostolic priesthood. But when it becomes a matter of “Well, I think Christ means…” we get exactly the relativist chaos that Luther himself lamented in his later ministry.

Certainly is a complex issue.

The same could be said for Christianity in general.

Indeed.

We’d agree that they weren’t all natively in Antioch, but that was where the next one was held. Again, because of Peter.
There is a middle ground between egalitarianism and totalitarianism, especially as it pertains to the Chair of Peter.

Source, where those meeting state they are there because St. Peter, particularly, is there.
That middle ground, in my view, was the ground prior to the Schism, and articulated in Nicaea canon 6.

As a unified, single “church”, you’re totally 100% correct. It was born in chaos and never coalesced into cosmos - only exponentially more chaos. As Christ only prescribed one Church, that is likely Protestantisms greatest indictment.

The chaos was the corruption and, yes, flawed teachings by the Church at the time in central Europe. But when you use the term “born”, you are immediately returning to the notion that it was one monolith. It was actually different “reformations”.

Actually, the only real chaffing point in TULIP for Lutherans is the “L” - Limited Atonement. The rest are accepted with caveat. lcms.org/faqs/denominations

Actually, the rest is rejected because the caveats exclude the teachings represented there. Lutherans reject completely perseverence of saints, unconditional election, limited atonement and Irresistible Grace.

As a result of personal interpretation/revelation, of course not.

More than that. Without intending to speak for Baptists, they seem more likely to reject the Fathers, the creeds, etc, in short, the Tradition of the Church.

The lack is another indictment of Protestantism and it’s lack of genuine teaching authority. The Church and it’s predecessor had theirs in Rome and Jerusalem, where the leadership of the priesthood resided - as God has always provided us with a priesthood.

The lack is evidence of the non-existence, other than as a general grouping, and as a polemical tool. Each communion has leadership that they believe is scriptural and/or in keeping with the apostolic Tradition. Some I clearly disagree with.

From the perspective of one defending it, I can see the merit of the view. One the other hand, from the perspective of one who thinks Christ established one Church that was 1. given the sole authority to lead/teach and 2. cannot fail, it’s simply efficient.

Only if you think it valuable to argue against a fallacy. That seems to support a strawman argument.

Respectfully, rumblings of Protestantism were underway since the crisis of the Avignon Papacy. The view that it can trace itself, as a movement, to one Diet that took place as late as a decade after the 95 Theses is one not widely held.

The protest can indeed be linked specifically to the intentions of civil authorities to limit religious free exercise.

Further to the contrary, the religious etymology of “protestant” is commonly given as “the protest” of the Pope and the authority of the Church. Not any one particular event.

A polemic by some.

I’m not so sure it’s truly innovative. In the days of the Patriarchs, the male heir of Adam was obviously lauded in a place of honor that the other “household priests” were not. When the priesthood passed to the Levites by God’s command, they also had a high-priest, as we explicitly read.

The maintenance of a “headship” over God’s people doesn’t seem to be an innovation. It seems to be a continuation of what simply always was from the very beginning

Except that this was not the path of the early Church. I’ve had discussions with others before about this. It is a disagreement that will only be solved when Rome and the other patriarchs reconcile the matter, as only they can.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Spot-on.

I think the RCC and the EO should do a combined council on how Adam’s heir interacted with the other heads-of-household of their days. I think they should look at how the Levitical high-priest interacted with the other priests at temple.

The model for reunification is there. I wish we’d both reach for it.

And if they did, I suspect there are many Evangelical Catholics and Anglo-Catholics that would join the reconciliation

 

[Vonsalza]

Matthew 22 ** “Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. 38This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.”**

Excellent passage. But there’s a bit more to it than that, as evidenced by the existence of the rest of the NT, The OT and the visible Church He established. I’m sure we agree that the Church predates the NT both as written and canonized.

Source, where those meeting state they are there because St. Peter, particularly, is there.

Nothing so explicit. Just like minutes from a Joint Chiefs meeting in the US will provide little to no info on the President actually being America’s executive - which is essentially what the passages in Acts are.

Future anthropologists would know it because he’s always present in the minutes; as an authoritative meeting can’t meaningfully happen without him. The presence of the President is the variable that doesn’t change.

The chaos was the corruption and, yes, flawed teachings by the Church at the time in central Europe. But when you use the term “born”, you are immediately returning to the notion that it was one monolith. It was actually different “reformations”.

“Reformations” that were ordained directly by God. First as pillar of fire, next in the person of the Son. Where was the manifestation of God and what did He say in support of the protestant reformation?

Hebrews 7:12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

I didn’t see a divine change in God’s law to support the PR’s change of the priesthood.

Actually, the rest is rejected because the caveats exclude the teachings represented there. Lutherans reject completely perseverence of saints, unconditional election, limited atonement and Irresistible Grace.

From the link: “We affirm with Scripture that those who are predestined to salvation cannot be lost but will continue by God’s power to a blessed end”.

With the caveat: “Scripture does not teach, however, that those who come to faith cannot lose that faith”.

Ergo they make distinction between at least two classes of Christian: the predestined and the otherwise. For the former, “perseverance” (the “P” in “TULIP”) is affirmed.

Only if you think it valuable to argue against a fallacy. That seems to support a strawman argument.

Crying out “fallacy” when one may have not been committed is called, appropriately, the “fallacy” fallacy.

I’m confident that we agree when a Catholic argues against authoritative personal revelation as opposed to authoritative ecclesial revelation, sola fide and sola scriptura, they’ve effectively argued against some fundamental view of nearly all the protestants on the planet, minus a few obscure subsets.

Denial makes it no less true.

The protest can indeed be linked specifically to the intentions of civil authorities to limit religious free exercise.

Then I suppose Luther nailed his theses to the wrong door. He was looking for the Elector-Prince of Saxony’s castle instead of the Catholic Church in Wittenberg.

Except that this was not the path of the early Church.

There may have been dispute about the power of the Bishop in Rome, but about the existence of a visible priesthood in the early Church?
The overwhelming majority of commentary on the first five centuries I’ve read as both a protestant and a Catholic disagrees with you vigorously. In the year 100 AD, my personal opinion on a scriptural matter was not of the same authority as a Bishop appointed directly by the Apostles (assuming I was literate enough and rich enough to HAVE some tidbit of scripture). And thank God for it.

Did hierarchy have to develop further as the Church grew more successful? Of course. The same goes with any large and growing organization.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben.

Mark 16:16 is the Gospel invitation you speak of. So with your interpretation of this passage he is essentially repeating himself while wording it completely differently, and therefore misleading the reader into thinking the apostles and the Church have actual authority.

Hi La, not sure I understand you

Can you not say the same thing differently, like ,:rise and walk", or "your sins are forgiven ?..Can u not say go preach the gospel just as easily as go and teach how sins are forgiven, even not ?

and John, same author, goes on tosay in a epistle there is a difference between sins and that even if you pray for the individual it will make no difference, if it’s mortal. And why is that? Because it would need to be confessed and absolved:

Unfortunately this has been mistranslated in many protestant bibles. They mangle it to make it appear to be a singular sin such as the Blasphemy of the Spirit(often speculated along with apostasy), etc. Very misleading.

Kudos to the New King James, MSG, JUB, GNT and others for actually getting it right!!!

God bless

Not sure but my guess at the moment(not having my greek bible with me) is that most manuscripts have it in the singular. For sure some may have plural, not sure. Again, most are singular.

Seems strange if your view is right, not pray for a sinner who has a lifestyle of mortal sinning , as in plural, and leave it to the priest only.

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La, not sure I understand you

Can you not say the same thing differently, like ,:rise and walk", or "your sins are forgiven ?..Can u not say go preach the gospel just as easily as go and teach how sins are forgiven, even not ?

Sure you can, but in this context when he actually commissions and breathes upon them, it is misleading to disregard the point of tangible authority that’s being made.

Not sure but my guess at the moment(not having my greek bible with me) is that most manuscripts have it in the singular. For sure some may have plural, not sure. Again, most are singular.

Seems strange if your view is right, not pray for a sinner who has a lifestyle of mortal sinning , as in plural, and leave it to the priest only.

Blessings

Only matters what the original says and we don’t have it, unfortunately. Really doesn’t make sense in the singular and it’s a passage that had me scratching my head as a protestant with limited knowledge on canon and textual variances, etc.

But while on the topic, since you believe it is singular, what deadly sin is it referring to, in your opinion?

And I think it isn’t saying you can’t pray for them, it’s simply saying that person needs to repent on their own accord for forgiveness.

 

[JonNC]

=Vonsalza;14566786]Excellent passage. But there’s a bit more to it than that, as evidenced by the existence of the rest of the NT, The OT and the visible Church He established. I’m sure we agree that the Church predates the NT both as written and canonized.

And I. like you, am a member of that visible Church.

Nothing so explicit. Just like minutes from a Joint Chiefs meeting in the US will provide little to no info on the President actually being America’s executive - which is essentially what the passages in Acts are.

Exactly. Your claim is speculative. It is a reasonable speculation, bu it isn’t evidence of supremacy.

Future anthropologists would know it because he’s always present in the minutes; as an authoritative meeting can’t meaningfully happen without him. The presence of the President is the variable that doesn’t change.

Again, a speculative analogy.

“Reformations” that were ordained directly by God. First as pillar of fire, next in the person of the Son. Where was the manifestation of God and what did He say in support of the protestant reformation?

Where is the support for the :Counter Reformation", or of dogmatic declarations without truly ecumenical councils?

Hebrews 7:12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

I didn’t see a divine change in God’s law to support the PR’s change of the priesthood.

I didn’t see in God’s law the elevation of one bishop without council

From the link: “We affirm with Scripture that those who are predestined to salvation cannot be lost but will continue by God’s power to a blessed end”.

With the caveat: “Scripture does not teach, however, that those who come to faith cannot lose that faith”.

Ergo they make distinction between at least two classes of Christian: the predestined and the otherwise. For the former, “perseverance” (the “P” in “TULIP”) is affirmed.

Lutheran belief interpreted for me by a-]n/-] -]Anglican/-] Baptist turned Catholic.
Since the scripture does not teach that someone who comes to faith cannot lose, the teaching of perseverence of the saints is false.

**CA: Article XII: Of Repentance.

1] Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted 2] and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these 3] two parts: One is contrition, that is, 4] terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of 5] the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts 6] the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.

7] They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such 8] perfection in this life that they cannot sin.**

The TULIP, save the T, is entirely rejected in Lutheran teaching.

Crying out “fallacy” when one may have not been committed is called, appropriately, the “fallacy” fallacy.

In this case there is one.

I’m confident that we agree when a Catholic argues against authoritative personal revelation as opposed to authoritative ecclesial revelation, sola fide and sola scriptura, they’ve effectively argued against some fundamental view of nearly all the protestants on the planet, minus a few obscure subsets.

Denial makes it no less true.

I would argue against personal revelation, hence the fallacy. Not all “protestants” teach what you are arguing against. Not all teach sola fide, or sola scriptura. Debate the person you are debating with. argue against their views, not some blanket teaching that may not be true of that person. And if it is too confusing to “keep them all straight”, don’t participate with those you do not know about.

Then I suppose Luther nailed his theses to the wrong door. He was looking for the Elector-Prince of Saxony’s castle instead of the Catholic Church in Wittenberg.

When the HHS Mandate was decreed by the last administration, LCMS President Harrison, and Catholic Bishop Lori sat side by side to argue argue against the mandate. They went there to protest a government policy. It was government policy that was protested at the Second Diet of Speyer, not Catholic teaching. When Luther nailed his Theses, the topic was, essentially, indulgences. Why would he go to the government about that?

There may have been dispute about the power of the Bishop in Rome, but about the existence of a visible priesthood in the early Church?
The overwhelming majority of commentary on the first five centuries I’ve read as both a protestant and a Catholic disagrees with you vigorously. In the year 100 AD, my personal opinion on a scriptural matter was not of the same authority as a Bishop appointed directly by the Apostles (assuming I was literate enough and rich enough to HAVE some tidbit of scripture). And thank God for it.

Agreed. Take that argument to someone who disputes it.

Did hierarchy have to develop further as the Church grew more successful? Of course. The same goes with any large and growing organization.

Agreed again.

Jon

 

[Tomyris]

Unfortunately this has been mistranslated in many protestant bibles. They mangle it to make it appear to be a singular sin such as the Blasphemy of the Spirit(often speculated along with apostasy), etc. Very misleading.

Kudos to the New King James, MSG, JUB, GNT and others for actually getting it right!!!

God bless

Where is it plural in the Greek? I just read through it in Greek and it looks singular everywhere in this passage.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Where is it plural in the Greek? I just read through it in Greek and it looks singular everywhere in this passage.

biblehub.com/greek/amartia_266.htm

ἁμαρτία can be translated “sins” like in John 8:21…or sin in general which can also be plural like in Matt 12:31 which says all manner of sin can be forgiven. Depends on context…or sin, meaning singular sin.

Here’s the problem with that. If you translate it as a singular sin, you must be consistent and translate verse 17 as singular as well. And so here is what you have in verse 17:

1 John 5:17New American Standard Bible (NASB)

17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

Another version with this translation:

1 John 5:17King James Version (KJV)

17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is ***a sin not ***unto death.

So now we are led to believe that there is only one singular sin that is NOT unto death. So everything else leads to death except this one sin? Which one is that?

Years ago I read somewhere, from a protestant site, ironically, that the “a” or “an” is actually added by translators in all instances. And it makes sense as these verses do not make a whole lot of sense unless the author is actually referring to sin classifications as the RCC teaches.

I have heard enough varying explanations on this on the non-Catholic side to make your head spin, lol. It’s the blasphemy spoken of in Matt 12:32…no wait, it’s apostasy as that fits in better contextually…no, actually, if you are OSAS believer then it just means physical death for certain sins, but you still go to paradise.

But I would like to see if there are any textual variances here as well. Any scholars in the house?

 

[Tomyris]

biblehub.com/greek/amartia_266.htm

ἁμαρτία can be translated “sins” like in John 8:21…or sin in general which can also be plural like in Matt 12:31 which says all manner of sin can be forgiven. Depends on context…or sin, meaning singular sin.

Here’s the problem with that. If you translate it as a singular sin, you must be consistent and translate verse 17 as singular as well. And so here is what you have in verse 17:

Another version with this translation:

So now we are led to believe that there is only one singular sin that is NOT unto death. So everything else leads to death except this one sin? Which one is that?

Years ago I read somewhere, from a protestant site, ironically, that the “a” or “an” is actually added by translators in all instances. And it makes sense as these verses do not make a whole lot of sense unless the author is actually referring to sin classifications as the RCC teaches.

I have heard enough varying explanations on this on the non Catholic side to make your head spin, lol.

But I would like to see if there are any textual variances here as well. Any scholars in the house?

Well, I do a little Greek here and there.

The problem is that Greek does not have an indefinite article. It has ‘the’, declined by gender number and case, but no ‘a’. So ‘sin’ and ‘a sin’ are both valid translations of hamartia. It is actually worse than that in the Greek as the Greek has the phrase sinning sin, which complicates it further. You can also get into highly complex rules of when a definite article should be inserted in translating and when it should be withheld, based on analyses of when these things occur in Greek in indisputable locations.

So translating it ‘sin’ is valid, and translating it ‘a sin’ in one place here and ‘sin’ in another can be a valid translation. It does not have to be consistently translated as one or another. A lot of that is up to the judgement of the translation team, and they often wrangle over the translation at length. I think accusing the translators of mangling or misrepresenting the text is taking it too far. Maintaining that a translation is incorrect because it does not agree with what you think it should say is wrong, regardless of theology.

I have a Greek NT with all the textual variations noted. I looked at it earlier in anticipation of this but I don’t have it in front of me. I will look at it later for variations. I don’t think there are ever any variations that affect doctrine, which is an indication of the preservation of the text by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Well, I do a little Greek here and there.

The problem is that Greek does not have an indefinite article. It has ‘the’, declined by gender number and case, but no ‘a’. So ‘sin’ and ‘a sin’ are both valid translations of hamartia. It is actually worse than that in the Greek as the Greek has the phrase sinning sin, which complicates it further. You can also get into highly complex rules of when a definite article should be inserted in translating and when it should be withheld, based on analyses of when these things occur in Greek in indisputable locations.

So translating it ‘sin’ is valid, and translating it ‘a sin’ in one place here and ‘sin’ in another can be a valid translation. It does not have to be consistently translated as one or another. A lot of that is up to the judgement of the translation team, and they often wrangle over the translation at length. I think accusing the translators of mangling or misrepresenting the text is taking it too far. Maintaining that a translation is incorrect because it does not agree with what you think it should say is wrong, regardless of theology.

I have a Greek NT with all the textual variations noted. I looked at it earlier in anticipation of this but I don’t have it in front of me. I will look at it later for variations. I don’t think there are ever any variations that affect doctrine, which is an indication of the preservation of the text by the Holy Spirit.

Point taken, but translators are human and they have their biases, obviously. Read a NASB and there is a heavy Calvinist slant there. Just a example…

In regards to the last paragraph which I have bolded, have you taken a hard look at 1 Corinthians 4:6? A passage that is often used to try and justify Sola Scriptura. From what I have heard, it can be translated like 8 different ways due to textual variances. Dr. Sungenis actually wrote a book on this, but I do not know the title off hand.

Here are a four English translations, varying quite a bit and it’s due to textual variance:

NASB Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

KJ21And these things, brethren, I have in a sense transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes, that ye may learn through us not to regard men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

NLT Dear brothers and sisters, I have used Apollos and myself to illustrate what I’ve been saying. If you pay attention to what I have quoted from the Scriptures, you won’t be proud of one of your leaders at the expense of another

WE My brothers, I have said these things about Apollos and myself so that you will learn from us to live the way the holy writings say. Then you will not be proud and say, `This teacher is better than that one.’

Now if I am reformed, I am holding tight to NASB as the others don’t seem to jive with my presupposition of Sola Scriptura being mandated by the scriptures…

 

[Tomyris]

So now we are led to believe that there is only one singular sin that is NOT unto death. So everything else leads to death except this one sin? Which one is that?

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, I should think. Jesus was quite clear about there being no forgiveness for that.

 

[Tomyris]

Point taken, but translators are human and they have their biases, obviously. Read a NASB and there is a heavy Calvinist slant there. Just a example…

In regards to the last paragraph which I have bolded, have you taken a hard look at 1 Corinthians 4:6? A passage that is often used to try and justify Sola Scriptura. From what I have heard, it can be translated like 8 different ways due to textual variances. Dr. Sungenis actually wrote a book on this, but I do not know the title off hand.

Here are a four English translations, varying quite a bit and it’s due to textual variance:

Now if I am reformed, I am holding tight to NASB as the others don’t seem to jive with my presupposition of Sola Scriptura being mandated by the scriptures…

No, if you are reformed you hold to the Greek in both its precision and ambiguity if you know any Greek. You don’t select translations to conform to your presuppositions. That was close to unfair.

The NLT is more of a paraphrase than a translation, I think. I don’t read it. Is the last the WEB, which is a one-woman translation? She was striving for comprehension by the listeners with their limited English, not for an exact translation. The NASB is as exact as anything to the point of woodenness at the expense of anything literary but usually follows the Greek closely.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, I should think. Jesus was quite clear about there being no forgiveness for that.

Blasphemy in Matt 12:32 is a goner, you are done and no forgiveness in this age or the age to come.

So I have heard that explanation as possibly being the sin unto death in verse 16. I’m assuming that is what you are saying here.

But which one is the one sin that is ***not ***unto death in verse 17?

Because if we read into the text it says:

1 John 5:17King James Version (KJV)

17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

No, if you are reformed you hold to the Greek in both its precision and ambiguity if you know any Greek. You don’t select translations to conform to your presuppositions. That was close to unfair.

The NLT is more of a paraphrase than a translation, I think. I don’t read it. ** Is the last the WEB, which is a one-woman translation?** She was striving for comprehension by the listeners with their limited English, not for an exact translation. The NASB is as exact as anything to the point of woodenness at the expense of anything literary but usually follows the Greek closely.

No, Worldwide English

 

[Tomyris]

Anyway we are looking at three classes of sin. One you can intercede for someone and “fix” it. The second would take a priest in Catholic thought. The third one nobody can help the sinner with.

Nothing in the passage we are looking at introduces a priest as able to straighten things out.

There have been times I have done something similar to confession with a pastor, although we don’t call it that, and there is no concept of absolution. It’s ‘how can I straighten this out’ and he has amazingly good counsel in the situation. So the elements of forgiveness and penance are there, the forgiveness part being with Jesus as high priest, and the pastor issuing a sort of penance (go apologize and don’t do that again). Usually the counsel one of our pastors gives is something like “go join an AA group”/“you would be a good Sunday school teacher”: lifestyle changes, not seven Hail Marys and you are done with it, as a Catholic told me is what he regularly gets as a penance. The objective is to lead a holy life, not just get off the hook. I think the former is what is intended by Catholic penance.

 

[Tomyris]

No, Worldwide English

biblegateway.com/versions/Worldwide-English-New-Testament-WE/

The same.

 

[Tomyris]

Blasphemy in Matt 12:32 is a goner, you are done and no forgiveness in this age or the age to come.

So I have heard that explanation as possibly being the sin unto death in verse 16. I’m assuming that is what you are saying here.

But which one is the one sin that is ***not ***unto death in verse 17?

Because if we read into the text it says:

I need to go. Final thought is that there are some things that kill you slowly and some quickly, some lead you slowly away from God and some immediately. You can cheat at cards for years but if you take up playing chicken with freight trains you don’t have very long. You can teasingly insult your husband in a way he does not like or have him walk in on you in bed with another guy. All sin leads people away from God, some is only more so than others.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Anyway we are looking at three classes of sin. One you can intercede for someone and “fix” it. The second would take a priest in Catholic thought. The third one nobody can help the sinner with.

Nothing in the passage we are looking at introduces a priest as able to straighten things out.

There have been times I have done something similar to confession with a pastor, although we don’t call it that, and there is no concept of absolution. It’s ‘how can I straighten this out’ and he has amazingly good counsel in the situation. So the elements of forgiveness and penance are there, the forgiveness part being with Jesus as high priest, and the pastor issuing a sort of penance (go apologize and don’t do that again). Usually the counsel one of our pastors gives is something like “go join an AA group”/“you would be a good Sunday school teacher”: lifestyle changes, not seven Hail Marys and you are done with it, as a Catholic told me is what he regularly gets as a penance. The objective is to lead a holy life, not just get off the hook. I think the former is what is intended by Catholic penance.

I’ve done the same as a protestant. Talked to a pastor behind closed doors about a particular sin I struggled with. Actually, confession in the Catholic Church has not been a adjustment for me at all. I think it’s good for our souls to bring all sin into the light now, as it will all be exposed later, anyhow. Thankfully our priests are more problem solving oriented such as the pastor you mentioned. Never been told to say 7 Hail Marys.

I think whether we are confessing to a Priest/pastor or to Joe Parishoner over at Doubting Thomas Church down the road, either way, it’s a positive experience, spiritually…

So for those non Catholics who have a big issue with confession, I fail to understand the problem with it. Seems you understand the benefit.

In regards to the comment about no priestly intervention mentioned, keep in mind this is the same author of John 20:21-23. Sometimes things go without saying.

 

[benhur]

Sure you can, but in this context when he actually commissions and breathes upon them, it is misleading to disregard the point of tangible authority that’s being made.

Hi La,

Agree that they had authority.

Remember that preaching is a joint venture with the Holy Ghost, indeed the Breath of Christ. No one repents and then confesses Jesus as Lord, but by this same Holy Ghost. When Peter first preached, for sure the breath of God came out of Peter, and for sure the people were convicted and changed by the Holy Ghost, many glady being baptized. Can’t get more “authoritative” than that.

Every Christian, every disciple, has this authority to preach the gospel in the Holy Ghost, (and as St Francis might inject, sometimes use words.) It is recorded. It’s in the books. Folks will be judged then by what they see and hear, and how they respond to the Christian’s “witness”. This is all quite “tangible”.

For sure the apostles had authority to be just that, ''sent ones", to preach with authority, and make disciples, to do the same, in one fashion or another. Being an apostle , or preacher or teacher is a gift for some. Sharing Christ with others thru the Holy Ghost is for all in the Body. He indwells us as a living fountain, with living waters. A thirsty world needs no more authority, at least not to come to Christ. After that, yes, submit yourself to the church and your (a) spiritual father as a babe in Christ.

Blessings