Justification by Faith vs The Sacrament of Confession

[Atemi]

Thanks anyway.

All I can do is ask.

I don’t expect any answer.

 

[Chancellare]

Actually, though I am sure you are unaware, you gave me all the proof I need to know that the Scriptures are the greatest doctrinal and moral authority anywhere.

Is Scripture the only infallible source of Divine Truth?

 

[guanophore]

That’s why it is God who is faithful and just to forgive us of all sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

This is also why God is the perfect and infinitely superior bearer of forgiveness.

We should all prefer the Source.

Are you here to say that Catholics “should” abandon the sacraments? Are you really saying that you don’t believe Christ is encountered directly in each of the sacraments.

 

[guanophore]

All the quotes in the world do not change the reality that I posted.

I am addressing how the earliest church practiced, as they practiced fresh off the teaching of the Apostles who planted those churches.

so, when was the last time you confessed your sins to a righteous person, and asked for prayers, so that the wounds created by your sins could be healed?

James 5:16-17
“Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And I still want to know what Church has existed from apostolic times and still practices ‘exactly’ like the apostles’ did, using the same ‘Bible’ the apostles used, having exactly the same ‘guidance’ as the apostles did, with the exact Scripture quote which not only told us exactly what the table of contents was to be for that Bible, but the exact Scripture quote which states that not only is this church to use the Bible ‘alone’ as the source of revealed truth, but also from the Bible the scripture which lays out exactly and precisely the format for worship ‘just as the apostles’ did’ so that we could worship’ just like them’.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This seems to imply that you thnk the hearts of those leading the church are mistaken?

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.

Are you looking for some kind of “proof” then! I am not sure matters of faith can be “proven”. But, if you really want a convincing “proof”, go to confession, be absolved, and you will have all the “proof” you ever needed!

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

you mean like, the sacraments are not valid or necessary?

 

[guanophore]

Atemi;2024274:

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.

You mean, you speak your sins into the ear of another person?
Atemi;2024274:

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.

Oh? what teaching if the church was that?
Atemi;2024274:

There were no “mortal sins” being regularly confessed to any priests in the early church.

Really? Why not?
Atemi;2024274:

• 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.

Hmmm… citations please.
Atemi;2024274:

• 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.

This is an awfully bold assertion to make. What do you consider it, not penance? that God refused to take Paul’s infirmity?
Atemi;2024274:

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

I think you are mixing apples and oranges. the justification that happens at baptism and the first confession is not the same as the ongoing sancitification that comes through the sacrament of reconciliation.
Atemi;2024274:

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.

Well, help me out here:

1 John 5:15-17
" If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal."

What do you think should be done with the mortal sin?

 

[Nicene]

You cannot separate works and faith…they are inseparable.

So Linkowski, since your faith is your works that means you are working our way into heaven. Big conundrum since:

Heb 11:1: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Accordingly you are trying to buy your way into heaven by virtue of your faith in works and not in Christ and the hope of things not seen.

What a dilemma.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Atemi]

You mean, you speak your sins into the ear of another person?

Yes. God and other people.

Oh? what teaching if the church was that?

Really? Why not?

Hmmm… citations please.

This is an awfully bold assertion to make. What do you consider it, not penance? that God refused to take Paul’s infirmity?

I do not have the time to educate you on history.

Please get a good book on the history of the early church.

Well, help me out here:

1 John 5:15-17
" If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal."

What do you think should be done with the mortal sin?

John is not speaking of sin that kills spiritually.

Secondly, we should humbly confess all our sins to God just like the Scriptures command and teach.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I do not have the time to educate you on history.

Please get a good book on the history of the early church.

I’m sorry, this is a cop-out. Those of us responding most probably have good books on the history of the early church and they do not back you up. This kind of argument isn’t an argument at all; basically you’re not only saying that we have to take your word for your ‘assertions’ without any citation or source whatsoever, and you’re also implying that we haven’t read the history or we would ‘know’ that you are right.

What ‘good book’ do you have from which you cite?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

we should humbly confess all our sins to God just like the Scriptures command and teach.

Well if that’s your worry about us Catholics, you can relax.

We do exactly that. . .humbly confess all our sins to God just as the Scriptures command and teach.

 

[guanophore]

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??

You are comparing apples and oranges, Traveller. Acceptance of the free gift of justification happens at baptism. Baptism is entirely cleansing. That is another sacrament. REconciliation is for sins that are committed after justification, so that one can partake of Eucharist, which is also entirely cleansing.

 

[Atemi]

Well if that’s your worry about us Catholics, you can relax.

We do exactly that. . .humbly confess all our sins to God just as the Scriptures command and teach.

I worry of no such thing.

LOL.

It’s good to know we all recognize then that the priest is then moot.

 

[Atemi]

I’m sorry, this is a cop-out. Those of us responding most probably have good books on the history of the early church and they do not back you up.

Then please controvert the facts I presented in my previous post:

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

This kind of argument isn’t an argument at all.; basically you’re not only saying that we have to take your word for your ‘assertions’ without any citation or source whatsoever, and you’re also implying that we haven’t read the history or we would ‘know’ that you are right.

Yes.

I am not speaking my own opinions but on the historical reality in the early church.

Don’t take my word for anything. Do your due diligence.

I am not here to school anyone where they are deficient.

 

[Eileen_T]

Atemi:

I do not have the time to educate you on history.

Don’t take my word for anything. Do your due diligence.

I am not here to school anyone where they are deficient.

I am puzzled as to why you are here. Your historical reality remains only a matter of opinion until you offer credible sources and references.

The onus is on you to provide them.

 

[LilyM]

I worry of no such thing.

LOL.

It’s good to know we all recognize then that the priest is then moot.

The priest is no more moot for confessing our sins to God than your minister is for baptisms or weddings. In all instances it is essential to have the grace of the sacrament, ordinance, rite or whatever you wish to call it, conferred on us through a human agent of God.

This is necessary when seeking God’s forgiveness (at least for serious sin) as well. Even David and the Prophet Nathan knew this - after David’s affair with Bathsheba and Nathan’s call for repentance it was NATHAN who TOLD David that God had forgiven him - 2 Samuel 12:13

 

[Milliardo]

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.

This is a well-known fact that confession then was done publicly; however, it does not imply as well though that it was forbidden to confess more than once. One would have to make that false conclusion that the early Church forbade confessing more than once. Indeed, it would be more logical that the early Church would encourage rather than discourage such a thing.

• There were no “mortal sins” being regularly confessed to any priests in the early church.

What are “grave sins” then if not mortal sins? The fact that non-mortal sins were not regularly confessed again does not necessarily mean that the difference between mortal and venial sins were not recognized.

• For most Christians, there were NO sins confessed (during exomologesis) for their entire lives. Where were all their mortal sins being confessed?

A good, Christian life for early Christians would espouse a confession of such sins, as you pointed out. Yet now you contradict this same point here? Amazing is all I can say.

• 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.

As I’ve pointed out, this cannot be proven; there is nothing that implies that. Even if we consider for a moment that the practice of the early Christians was to confess only once in their lives, there is no indication that to confess more than once would constitute a violation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I know that holding God’s very Words to be the most authoritative voice in the universe is alien to you, but maybe you can take some time to understand why God’s people would actually think that way…

Holding to God’s Word is one thing…holding to your own admittedly fallible interpretations and your man-made traditions is quite another.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The priest is no more moot for confessing our sins to God than your minister is for baptisms or weddings. In all instances it is essential to have the grace of the sacrament, ordinance, rite or whatever you wish to call it, conferred on us through a human agent of God.

This is necessary when seeking God’s forgiveness (at least for serious sin) as well. Even David and the Prophet Nathan knew this - after David’s affair with Bathsheba and Nathan’s call for repentance it was NATHAN who TOLD David that God had forgiven him - 2 Samuel 12:13

Careful…this non-Catholic will say that anyone can baptize (it’s not a sacrament, just a symbol) and that marriage is not a sacrament, either. At least, not as the word was originally defined.

 

[LilyM]

Careful…this non-Catholic will say that anyone can baptize (it’s not a sacrament, just a symbol) and that marriage is not a sacrament, either. At least, not as the word was originally defined.

Regardless, a person can’t declare THEMSELVES married or baptised, always requires the agency of another to do so, so can they not declare themselves forgiven of grave sin!