Justification by Faith vs The Sacrament of Confession

[Atemi]

Do you have some actual evidence of this, or are you just being led by the Spirit?

Actual church history, so mocking the ministry of the Holy Spirit is very unbecoming for anyone claiming to be Christian.

There are the citations from Scripture (written by Apostles)

And these have been shown to have been misinterpreted by the RCC.

If all the earliest Christians were not confessing their sins to priests for absolution, then the Apostles obviously didn’t teach that Christians needed to confess their sins to priests for absolution.

the Didache (teaching of the Apostles)

The Didache mentions no necessary confession to a priest at all. Again, this is the problem. How is it that the Didache would miss this vital part of the Apostolic witness?

the Early Church Fathers (the direct disciples of the Apostles).

No. The ECFs were not direct disciples of the Apostles.

Other than that, which ECFs?

Let’s start with the earliest.

The writings of Ignatius, the Didache, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus ALL do not mention any confession of sins to any preists or anything about penance either.

If we also open our Scriptures, we will find no mention of any necessity for Christians to do penance or confess their sins to any priests in over 260 chapters of inspired text.

After the Apostolic period, the practice of exomologesis did develop over time, but that alone is still very far from what the RCC teaches as Apostolic doctrine:

“If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.” (Trent, session 14, “Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance”, canon 6)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Would you please show me, in Scripture, where it is taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are three divine persons in One God?

Explicitly taught. Three Divine Persons in One God. Not the “go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit” passage. . .because that does not specifically say that they are three persons in One God.

Yet Protestant and Catholic Churches teach the Trinity–a doctrine that ‘developed’ over time from the embryonic truth found in written Scripture

which I again remind you was not available in the early Church in the ‘Bible’ form that we possess today, not for nearly 350 years. . .

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Actual church history, so mocking the ministry of the Holy Spirit is very unbecoming for anyone claiming to be Christian.

What actual Church teaching - be specific. And I am not mocking anyone, many Protestants will claim to know things of the Early Church not from any study, but from what they call “being led by the Spirit” - I was inquiring if this was your position.

And these have been shown to have been misinterpreted by the RCC.

The infallible interpreter cannot misinterpret - but the Magisterium and private interpretation is really fodder for another thread.

If all the earliest Christians were not confessing their sins to priests for absolution, then the Apostles obviously didn’t teach that Christians needed to confess their sins to priests for absolution.

Again, provide specific evidence that this was indeed the case.

The Didache mentions no necessary confession to a priest at all. Again, this is the problem. How is it that the Didache would miss this vital part of the Apostolic witness?

In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions (i.e. confession), and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience. (Didache 4:14)

But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. (Didache 14:1)

No. The ECFs were not direct disciples of the Apostles.

Many Early Church Fathers were the direct disciples of the Apostles. Saint Ignatius of Antioch and Saint Polycarp were disciples of Saint John. Saint Mark the Evangelist was a disciple of Saint Peter. Saint Luke the Evangelist was a disciple of Saint Paul. Then others were the disciples of the disciples of the Apostles - and on and on until the present day. This is called Apostolic Succession.

Other than that, which ECFs?

Let’s start with the earliest.

The writings of Ignatius, the Didache, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus ALL do not mention any confession of sins to any preists or anything about penance either.

Really! Here are a couple. For even more, look at this webpage.

Ignatius:“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).

“For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop” (ibid., 8).

Didache: See directly above.

Clement: For after we have gone out of the world, no further power of confessing or repenting will there belong to us. (Second Epistle to Corinthians, 8) - though we are not 100% certain that this was written by Clement.

If we also open our Scriptures, we will find no mention of any necessity for Christians to do penance or confess their sins to any priests in over 260 chapters of inspired text.

It abounds. Many, many verses have been cited, so I won’t repeat them. But if you need them again, let me know.

After the Apostolic period, the practice of exomologesis did develop over time, but that alone is still very far from what the RCC teaches as Apostolic doctrine:

What do you mean by this?

 

[StevenFrancis]

If scripture tells us that we are justified by faith and that one must accept the kingdom of God as a child would accept a gift, then why does the Catholic church emphasize one attempting to recall each and every sin committed at a sacremental confession? If it is by faith in the sacrifice that Christ made for our sins that cleanses us, then why the scrutiny in confession??

Hi.

I will anticipate that you are not going to accept Christianity’s VERY important, (and inseperable from scripture), oral, and historical traditions, only because most who ask this question are approaching it from that angle. If I am wrong, and you are open to the full answer, please say so, and I will happily also answer you with the infinitely clearer tradition adjunct.

From the stance of sola scriptura, (which I don’t subscribe to, and can’t honestly recommend to any Christian adherent), here is what we know:

1. As to your first statement, that we are justified by faith, that is not the full story. I’m guessing you’re at Ephesians 2.

8: For **by grace you have been saved **through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God –
9: not because of works, lest any man should boast.

First of all, note: even this quote, which is very likely the whole basis of your argument, and has the actual words justified by faith, prefaces itself with by ‘Grace’ you have been saved. Where does this grace come from? If you look at the broader view, and read the bible from a stance of overall context, a full picture begins to evolve regarding that grace which will lead you to understand that the “works” being warned against here, are those which are of a boastful or open nature. “look at me! I’m working for my salvation” as opposed to the very personal contract between you and God to do “good works”, and not just rest on your laurels. Allow me to illustrate what I’m speaking of with several more passages which inform us that we indeed DO need to continue to do work for our assurance of salvation:

Here’s a passage from Romans:

4: Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
5: But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
6: For he will render to every man according to his works:
7: to those who by patience **in well-doing **seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
8: but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
9: There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
10: but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
11: For God shows no partiality.
12: All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
13: For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

This is from Phillipians Chapter 2:

12: Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, **work out your own salvation **with fear and trembling;
13: for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

and Matthew 7: (In this one again, as in Ephesians, we are told that we should DO works, but NOT boastful works, or just going through the motions, you might say.

21: "Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who **does the will of my Father **who is in heaven. 22: On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
23: And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

Matthew 19 - (here we are told we must take positive action):

16: And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?”
17: And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”
18: He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,
19: Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST:

 

[StevenFrancis]

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST:

Matthew 24: - (some very specific works)

34: Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
35: for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
36: I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’

Luke 6:27 - 36 (some specific works to do in the Beattitudes)
Luke 6 46 - 49: (This is a VERY illuminating passage):

46: “Why do you call me `Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?
47: Every one who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like:
48: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep, and laid the foundation upon rock; and when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it had been well built.
49: But he who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation; against which the stream broke, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.”

There are many more examples if you read Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Hebrews Ephesians, Philippians, James, 2 Peter and 1 John. E-mail me and I’ll send you all these texts. I think you get the idea. Saved by the cross, as a gift? Surely. But you can’t then, just kick back and forget about it. OR do empty or boastful works, and have an expectation of sailing right on in. You may have fufther work to do, even after death!!

The “GIFT” is you get to know and believe in Christ, who is the way and light. But once you know him, and magnificence that he is, please don’t assume you can take that gift for granted.

(Edited by Moderator to remove off topic portion)

 

[StevenFrancis]

CONTINUED FROM MY PREVIOUS POST:

So: Confession laid out scripturally:

First, remember that Christ has the power to heal the spiritually and physically sick, as well as to forgive sins:

i.e.; Matthew 9:

1: And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city.
2: And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”
3: And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.”
4: But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?
5: For which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, Rise and walk’?
6: But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – he then said to the paralytic – “Rise, take up your bed and go home.”
7: And he rose and went home.
8: When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Also, see Mark 2:5 - 12

Christ, entrusted the power to forgive sins IN HIS NAME to his Apostles:

Matthew 18:

18: Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19: Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

John 20:

22: And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23: If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

2 Corinthians 5: (This one is VERY clear)

**18: All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;
19: that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
20: So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. **

There are other passages in Matthew Luke, John, 2 Corinthians, James, Acts, and 1 John by request.

The Apostles continued to carry out this work, and pass on this gift through the Church, in successive generations, right on up to today as the Priests at your local Parish. Ordained and empowered in the name of Christ Jesus, and when administering these sacraments, they are indeed in the person of Christ just as when Christ first sent out the Apostles.

The Church will withstand and prvail against all evil and to the end of time

I hope that there is something in all this that will inspire you to continue to do your own reading and research and ask other questions with genuine intent. Remember always that Christ’s Church is still here, still alive, and still doing the work it always did. There’s a reason for that. If the cross was all there was, Christ would not have felt it important for there to be a Church, or for there to even be a moral or ethical code among men for that matter.

Glory be to God. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. World without end. Amen.

Peace,

Steven

 

[Milliardo]

I repeat:

You do know that all the Christians in the earliest church were not confessing their sins to clergy and receiving absolution, right?

This is a matter of history.

“Enough said” only applies to your interpretation, not the reality.

Then kindly explain to us if, after Jesus gave this power to forgive and retain sins to the Apostles, this same power has been lost or not transferred to their successors. Ah, and historical do you say?

 

[Chancellare]

You may be correct - because they generally do not want to accept it although scripture makes election/predestination very clear.

What is your understanding of this particular passage?

Ro 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the **purpose of God **according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

BY THE WAY, THIS IS WHAT I WOULD SAY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR ISSUES WITH GOD’S CHOOSING OF SOME TO SALVATION WHILE PASSING OVER OTHERS (ALTHOUGH NONE OF US DESERVE SALVATION)

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

THIS IS ANOTHER PASSAGE DESIGNED TO ANSWER PEOPLE THAT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GOD CHOOSING SOME TO SALVATION WHILE PASSING OVER OTHERS…

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

God chooses us according to His plan and purpose - and not by anything that we do…

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Was Judas chosen??? Certainly not…

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

That is why Judas was allowed to go wayward while Jesus still prayed for Peter’s return…

Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Other passages…

John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Our faith comes through grace…

Acts 18:27 And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace,

And God’s choosing is by grace…

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Nobody can come to Christ unless they are drawn to Him…

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

DRAW - or helko hel’-ko; probably akin to 138; **to drag **(literally or figuratively):–draw. Compare 1667.

It is effectual grace of election - God’s gracious choice.

Which kind are you: Supralapsarian or Infralapsarian?

 

[Pax]

You do know that all the Christians in the earliest church were not confessing their sins to clergy and receiving absolution, right?

That did not come for many centuries.

This is simply incorrect. If you want to see a discussion and rebuttal of all of this you can read my posts over on CARM. I used to post over their under the handle “STJ.” Auricular confession was always done. In the early church sins were confessed publicly before the elders and presbyters. Later on confessions were allowed to be made privately.

If you disagree with confession then refute by scripture my earlier posts on this thread that support the practice.

 

[Atemi]

It is good to hear from you again, STJ.

**You do know that all the Christians in the earliest church were not confessing their sins to clergy and receiving absolution, right?

That did not come for many centuries.**

This is simply incorrect. Auricular confession was always done.

Auricular confession by whom and for what and how often?

I make auricular confessions of sin all the time. That alone means nothing in relation to the claims of the Church in this regard.

In the early church sins were confessed publicly before the elders and presbyters.

Actually, they were confessed before the congregation itself, but only very grave offenses were done this way…and only once a lifetime per the teaching of the church.

• There were no “mortal sins” being regularly confessed to any priests in the early church.
• For most Christians, there were NO sins confessed (during exomologesis) for their entire lives. Where were all their mortal sins being confessed?
• As a regular practice and teaching in the early church, there were no second chances for any more penance after the first and only time.
• There was no judicial absolution given the penitent, as if God had not forgiven the repentant sinner for 10, 15, or 20 years. And in some parts of the Church, their ENTIRE lives.

The ONLY ties of exomologesis to the modern RC practice are merely the terms “confession,” “repentance,” and “penance.”

What was being confessed, why it was being confessed, how it was being confessed, to whom it was being confessed, when it was being confessed, how long it was being confessed, and what happened after that confession…

…are all different from modern Catholic doctrine and practice.

How can Scripture and the Apostles supposedly teach on mortal sin and the necessity of priestly forgiveness if such is missing for CENTURIES from the history of the church?

That effectively eliminates all arguments of mortal sin from Scripture or any supposed Apostolic origin. That also effectively eliminates priests forgiving that mortal sin as supposedly commanded by Christ.

The cry of “development! development!” only serves to help folks escape from this historical and factual reality, IMO.

 

[Atemi]

Actual church history, so mocking the ministry of the Holy Spirit is very unbecoming for anyone claiming to be Christian.

What actual Church teaching - be specific.

I said church history.

There is no early church teaching that really matches what the Catholic Church teaches today.

And I am not mocking anyone, many Protestants will claim to know things of the Early Church not from any study, but from what they call “being led by the Spirit” - I was inquiring if this was your position.

I have never met any Protestants that claim that they know history merely by “being led by the Spirit,” but I have met many Catholics who claim to have had very surprising revelations by the Spirit.

But that is another thread…

**And these have been shown to have been misinterpreted by the RCC. **

The infallible interpreter cannot misinterpret - but the Magisterium and private interpretation is really fodder for another thread.

Yes. I am well aware of the regular claim that the RCC can never make a doctrinal mistake, no matter the heart of those leading her.

And you are right, that is also another thread.

If all the earliest Christians were not confessing their sins to priests for absolution, then the Apostles obviously didn’t teach that Christians needed to confess their sins to priests for absolution.

Again, provide specific evidence that this was indeed the case.

I believe that it is the job of the claimant to support the claim that all Christians have always been confessing their sins to priests for absolution.

I have looked everywhere and it is not there.

The Didache mentions no necessary confession to a priest at all. Again, this is the problem. How is it that the Didache would miss this vital part of the Apostolic witness?

In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions (i.e. confession), and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience. (Didache 4:14)

But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. (Didache 14:1)

I apologize. I’ll repeat myself:

The Didache mentions no necessary confession to a priest at all.

I do not deny that confessing our sins is correct Christian practice.

LOL. No way.

But calling Christians to confess their sins is, by no means, evidence that Christians must tell a priest their sins to be absolved and forgiven by God.

The OT alone, along with modern Judaism and Islam, make many references of confessing our sins, but that means nothing as far as proof for the modern Catholic sacrament.

No. The ECFs were not direct disciples of the Apostles.

Many Early Church Fathers were the direct disciples of the Apostles.

Well you said “the ECFs” were direct disciples, not “many ECFs” were direct disciples.

If we are not careful, some lurkers can receive incorrect information.

Continued is Part 2…

 

[Atemi]

The writings of Ignatius, the Didache, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus ALL do not mention any confession of sins to any preists or anything about penance either.

Really! Here are a couple.

Ignatius:“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).

“For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop” (ibid., 8).

These are horrible translations. Nowhere in the Greek text does it teach to do “penance.” The words there are “repent” (to change one’s mind, to turn around). To change the Greek word “repent” here and change it to “penance” is a serious error.

For support, here are very reputable translations from the Greek by Lightfoot and Roberts & Donaldson:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-philadelphians-lightfoot.html

earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-philadelphians-longer.html

Here it is in the original Greek:

ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/ignatius-philadelphians.htm

Not “do penance,” but repent.

There is a world of difference there…

Clement: For after we have gone out of the world, no further power of confessing or repenting will there belong to us. (Second Epistle to Corinthians, 8) - though we are not 100% certain that this was written by Clement.

This only speaks of the normal confession of sins to God and repentance. This says nothing about confessing our sins to priests for absolution, nor does the entire letter even hint at that.

If we also open our Scriptures, we will find no mention of any necessity for Christians to do penance or confess their sins to any priests in over 260 chapters of inspired text.

It abounds. Many, many verses have been cited, so I won’t repeat them. But if you need them again, let me know.

I know the usual “proof” texts, but not one ever teaches that Christians are to confess their sins to any priests.

Stretching and pulling the Word is not advatageous, IMO.

The Word is abundantly clear that we are to repent to be forgiven, not do works of penance for forgiveness.

After the Apostolic period, the practice of exomologesis did develop over time, but that alone is still very far from what the RCC teaches as Apostolic doctrine:

What do you mean by this?

I addressed some of this here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2024274&postcount=1

 

[Flying_Bison]

This discussion is getting very nasty with everyone claiming to have mountains of evidence.

We’ll I believe this is the long and short of it.

Jesus gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose and forgive sins.

Now the forgiving of Sins was not by the Apostles own power, but because Jesus had given them the Power.

When the Apostles died they gave this power to their successors. This had to be done or else there would be no bind/loosing, or forgiving of Sins, in the future. No one would ever dare say that since Jesus told the Apostles to Baptize and since they are dead no one can be Baptized. They passed on this to their successors, (eg, Baptism continues to this day) I might also add that scripture is very unclear about the form of Baptism as well.

Jesus gave the Apostles the Power to forgive sins, but he never gave them the form in which to to this. It is common sense to know that to forgive a sin, one must know what it is. There must have been some type of auricular component.

Now the Power to forgive sins was not given to all. It ONLY was given to the apostles. So only people who have had authority given to them by the Apostles can forgive sins.

The Catholic Priesthood is a direct successor of the Apostles. Power has been given to them to forgive sins. The Church also has the power to bind and loose, so it also has the authority to decide how the descendants of the Apostles forgive those sins.

So, The Catholic Priest has authority given to him, by a direct successor of the Apostles. The Apostles and thus their successor were never given a definitive form to practice this duty, so it was really left up to the Apostles and their successors. The Christian community has changed and so has the form, but the essentials of the power are their. Apostle (eg. successor in the form of priest) and forgiving of sins in Jesus’ name (confessional)

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread has been retitled to reflect subject more accurately.
MF

 

[Atemi]

Hello Bison,

This discussion is getting very nasty with everyone claiming to have mountains of evidence.

I am sorry, but as a Christian, offering evidence in support of the faith must never be construed as “nasty.”

I think it is more nasty to not offer evidence and just say things are the way they are because I, or some group, says they are.

We’ll I believe this is the long and short of it.

Jesus gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose and forgive sins.

As the witness of early church history shows, this does not mean what the RCC insists it does.

Now the forgiving of Sins was not by the Apostles own power, but because Jesus had given them the Power.

Everyone here already knows that this is the claim.

When the Apostles died they gave this power to their successors.

Everyone here already knows that this is the claim

This had to be done or else there would be no bind/loosing, or forgiving of Sins, in the future. No one would ever dare say that since Jesus told the Apostles to Baptize and since they are dead no one can be Baptized. They passed on this to their successors, (eg, Baptism continues to this day) I might also add that scripture is very unclear about the form of Baptism as well.

No it is not:

“immerse in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”

That is as clear as it gets.

Jesus gave the Apostles the Power to forgive sins, but he never gave them the form in which to to this.

Do you really believe that?

He gave them this authority but never taught them how to use it??

I will not believe that of my Lord.

I am sorry.

What you offer is conjecture because the record shows something totally opposite of what we should expect if the claims of the RCC were true in this regard.

It is common sense to know that to forgive a sin, one must know what it is. There must have been some type of auricular component.

Yes. It is called repentance before baptism. God covered this thoroughly.

Now the Power to forgive sins was not given to all. It ONLY was given to the apostles. So only people who have had authority given to them by the Apostles can forgive sins.

This is incorrect.

He gave this to ALL His disciples who were in the upper room.

There is no reason at all to believe this did not include Christ’s mother and Mary Magdalene as well.

The Catholic Priesthood is a direct successor of the Apostles. Power has been given to them to forgive sins. The Church also has the power to bind and loose, so it also has the authority to decide how the descendants of the Apostles forgive those sins.

All you are doing here is repeating the same claims that we all already know.

So, The Catholic Priest has authority given to him, by a direct successor of the Apostles. The Apostles and thus their successor were never given a definitive form to practice this duty, so it was really left up to the Apostles and their successors. The Christian community has changed and so has the form, but the essentials of the power are their. Apostle (eg. successor in the form of priest) and forgiving of sins in Jesus’ name (confessional)

All I am really hearing in this post is “I don’t care about evidence or history…all I will believe is what the Magisterium tells me.”

That is fine. We all would be better served if you just said that in the beginning.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Now the Power to forgive sins was not given to all. It ONLY was given to the apostles. So only people who have had authority given to them by the Apostles can forgive sins.

This is incorrect.

He gave this to ALL His disciples who were in the upper room.

There is no reason at all to believe this did not include Christ’s mother and Mary Magdalene as well.

Well, I’ve looked. I cannot find anything about the power to bind and loose sins in Acts (where the disciples were in the upper room at Pentecost). I find it in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18, where Jesus is speaking only to the 12. Would you mind showing us where specifically the power to forgive sins is given to ‘others’ including Mary and Mary Magdalen?

 

[Atemi]

Well, I’ve looked. I cannot find anything about the power to bind and loose sins in Acts (where the disciples were in the upper room at Pentecost). I find it in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18, where Jesus is speaking only to the 12. Would you mind showing us where specifically the power to forgive sins is given to ‘others’ including Mary and Mary Magdalen?

John 20.

There is no reason to believe that Mary and Mary, among others, were not present.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is nothing in Romans 8:30 that gives a tense, but, glorification is a future event when we are changed as 1 Corinthians 15:52 points out…

1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

…sanctification is an on-going event (from a progressive standpoint).

Heb 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

So this is past (positional and progressive), present, and future by which we are conformed to the image of Christ.

Justified is past.

Link-

I would agree with much of this…I am especially fond of the quote from 1 Co.

Glorification is a future event.
Sanctification is an ongoing process (at least I hope it’s ongoing in my case!)

The only point of disagreement is on justification being past only.

But hey, this is a fair bit of agreement for you and me, no? :clapping:

 

[Randy_Carson]

John 20.

There is no reason to believe that Mary and Mary, among others, were not present.

Interesting interpretation. Sola scriptura does liberate the imagination, doesn’t it?

But for the sake of those of us who are a little more circumspect about limiting the Sacrament of Holy Orders to men only, could you cite any of the Early Church Fathers who espoused the idea that Mary and Mary Magdalene were given the authority to forgive sins?

 

[Chancellare]

This is incorrect.

He gave this to ALL His disciples who were in the upper room.

There is no reason at all to believe this did not include Christ’s mother and Mary Magdalene as well.

Hey I thought Sola Scriptura does not accept anything not stated in the Bible?
This is not in the Bible (and many more, don’t be ridiculous) and yet you let this fly in your face.
Luther, Calvin, Wesley and the rest of Sola Scriptura authors must now be turning in their graves!