LDS: Apostasy

[Jay53]

Jay,
Jesus was sending out the apostles, not the bishops. He gave the authority to bind on earth that which would be bound in heaven to the apostles, not to the bishops. He gave the responsibility of judging worthiness to the apostles to keep the church from having ravenous wolves within the ranks of the membership, but that did not say that the apostles or the bishops needed to be an intermediary for every confession of sin. My goodness! What you have experienced could not have been the Holy Ghost except for the fact that God was hearing your confession to Him, not to the priest. The Bible did not give the priest the right or responsibility to tell you whether you had been forgiven or not. The Holy Ghost could tell you that directly, through your sincerity and through the atoning grace of Christ.

Of course Jesus sent out His Apostles and through the laying on of hands and ordination passed on this authority. Jesus explicitly says: “whose sins you shall forgive, they are foriven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” In your opinion, why would Jesus give this authority only to the Apostles, not to be handed down through His Church?

Of course it was God hearing my confession! The priest is acting in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. It is not the priest who is forgiving my sins, but God himself. God gave us this wonderful sacrament and the priests to administer it because of its healing properties. If you have never experienced this, then you cannot understand it fully. You may get a “feeling” that God has forgiven your sins just through personal prayer, but I can 100% guarantee that it is not the same!

That was my point. You asked for something that has been confirmed to me by the Holy Spirit.

BTW, I was under the impression that Mormons had a similar sacrament. Am I mistaken?

 

[KathleenGee]

So the Apostles die…Parker, do research and see what people did…Get into solid history and not believe the spins your leadership has been telling you to believe.

They were highly persecuted…and then with the apostles gone, then the foundation of the church is gone, and their faith then has no inheritance, no structure to pass down to their following generation???

What is so difficult is that you do not know those who associated with the apostles…any Catholic name associated with them is invalidated. That is the big problem. Denial of history…

 

[ParkerD]

Could you cite any historical writings from the early church that backs this claim up?

Bataar,
The attestation of TheosisM and of Jay53 was that the Bible in and of itself provided the basis for doctrines that could be shown to be true and that the Holy Ghost had confirmed to them was true doctrine. So the question about “historical writings from the early church” is a wrong question. The question should be “where in the Bible do the bishops get the specific authority to forgive sins, or to represent Christ to the people?” These are wrong, non-Biblical doctrines, brought into the “historical writings” by those who had already departed from Biblical teachings and doctrines.

 

[ParkerD]

Of course Jesus sent out His Apostles and through the laying on of hands and ordination passed on this authority. Jesus explicitly says: “whose sins you shall forgive, they are foriven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” In your opinion, why would Jesus give this authority only to the Apostles, not to be handed down through His Church?

Of course it was God hearing my confession! The priest is acting in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. It is not the priest who is forgiving my sins, but God himself. God gave us this wonderful sacrament and the priests to administer it because of its healing properties. If you have never experienced this, then you cannot understand it fully. You may get a “feeling” that God has forgiven your sins just through personal prayer, but I can 100% guarantee that it is not the same!

That was my point. You asked for something that has been confirmed to me by the Holy Spirit.

BTW, I was under the impression that Mormons had a similar sacrament. Am I mistaken?

Jay,
The Holy Spirit would not confirm a completely non-Biblical doctrine such as the kind of confession you have described, compared with how repentance is done as taught in the Bible to receive complete forgiveness from God through Christ. Repentance is done by confession of sin to God, forsaking the sin, living a better life thereafter, and forgiving others. The reason the apostles were involved was to make sure that unrepentant persons did not partake of the communion unworthily, but that would not be by receiving confession of every sin a person committed. If the sin were grave enough to impact worthiness for membership in the church, then those grave sins needed to be confessed because of the need to keep the church from being undermined by grievous impurity of the members. But there is such a huge difference between grave sins and every single sin in life!

The healing comes from Christ. The priest does not need to be involved at all for that healing to happen.

Mormons have confession to bishops and stake presidents if a sin was grave such as adultery or fornication, theft or defalcation, or abusive relationships. But that is to keep the partaking of communion a pure ordinance. The healing comes from Christ.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Jay,
The Holy Spirit would not confirm a completely non-Biblical doctrine such as the kind of confession you have described, compared with how repentance is done as taught in the Bible to receive complete forgiveness from God through Christ. Repentance is done by confession of sin to God, forsaking the sin, living a better life thereafter, and forgiving others. The reason the apostles were involved was to make sure that unrepentant persons did not partake of the communion unworthily, but that would not be by receiving confession of every sin a person committed. If the sin were grave enough to impact worthiness for membership in the church, then those grave sins needed to be confessed because of the need to keep the church from being undermined by grievous impurity of the members. But there is such a huge difference between grave sins and every single sin in life!

The healing comes from Christ. The priest does not need to be involved at all for that healing to happen.

Mormons have confession to bishops and stake presidents if a sin was grave such as adultery or fornication, theft or defalcation, or abusive relationships. But that is to keep the partaking of communion a pure ordinance. The healing comes from Christ.

More misrepresentation of Catholic belief.

 

[TheosisM]

Jay,
The Holy Spirit would not confirm a completely non-Biblical doctrine such as the kind of confession you have described, compared with how repentance is done as taught in the Bible to receive complete forgiveness from God through Christ. Repentance is done by confession of sin to God, forsaking the sin, living a better life thereafter, and forgiving others. The reason the apostles were involved was to make sure that unrepentant persons did not partake of the communion unworthily, but that would not be by receiving confession of every sin a person committed. If the sin were grave enough to impact worthiness for membership in the church, then those grave sins needed to be confessed because of the need to keep the church from being undermined by grievous impurity of the members. But there is such a huge difference between grave sins and every single sin in life!

The healing comes from Christ. The priest does not need to be involved at all for that healing to happen.

Mormons have confession to bishops and stake presidents if a sin was grave such as adultery or fornication, theft or defalcation, or abusive relationships. But that is to keep the partaking of communion a pure ordinance. The healing comes from Christ.

Catholics do not have to confess every single little sin in the sacrament of Confession. In Catholicism, we make a distinction between these little sins, calling them “venial sins”, and more serious sins, calling them “mortal sins”. Sin is still sin, and still takes us away from God, however some are definitely more serious than others, and we do not have to confess “venial sins” in the sacrament of Confession. In the sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation, we are confessing not only to the priest/bishop, but to God, and forgiveness ultimately comes from Jesus Christ. In the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches, this is symbolized by having confession in front of an icon (image) of Christ. Catholics are also encouraged to confess their sins outside of this sacrament, and each Sunday we also do this during Mass, where we call to mind our sins and together pray to God for forgiveness.

A Catholic should confess all major/mortal sins to a priest or bishop. Repentance in Catholicism is as you described “Repentance is done by confession of sin to God, forsaking the sin, living a better life thereafter, and forgiving others”. And of course one should have confessed their mortal sins before partaking in the Eucharist, so that they do not partake unworthily.

It is also important to quickly note that all of the sacraments in Catholicism are effected by God through Jesus Christ. The priesthood is the power of God on earth, acting through His servants.

 

[KathleenGee]

Amen…another distortion they feed those nice Mormon people…and deny them the truth and the sacraments.

Without the Catholic Church, Moroni would then have a hard time finding a new construct to promote these ideas. Without the Catholic Church, the Mormon church has nothing to stand on. It is all reactionary.

The Mormons do draw on Scriptures we can all share…like I told somebody…

!!Mormon Church!!, NOW is the time to tell your people the truth of the Catholic Church…and know yourself finally welcome to join the Christian community at large!..not all this anti this group or and anti that stuff. Time to get a new life in you!

 

[Jay53]

Jay,
The Holy Spirit would not confirm a completely non-Biblical doctrine such as the kind of confession you have described, compared with how repentance is done as taught in the Bible to receive complete forgiveness from God through Christ. Repentance is done by confession of sin to God, forsaking the sin, living a better life thereafter, and forgiving others. The reason the apostles were involved was to make sure that unrepentant persons did not partake of the communion unworthily, but that would not be by receiving confession of every sin a person committed. If the sin were grave enough to impact worthiness for membership in the church, then those grave sins needed to be confessed because of the need to keep the church from being undermined by grievous impurity of the members. But there is such a huge difference between grave sins and every single sin in life!

The healing comes from Christ. The priest does not need to be involved at all for that healing to happen.

Mormons have confession to bishops and stake presidents if a sin was grave such as adultery or fornication, theft or defalcation, or abusive relationships. But that is to keep the partaking of communion a pure ordinance. The healing comes from Christ.

Sorry, Parker, but you are flat out wrong on this one. I don’t care what kind of spin you put on it or how you misinterpret the Scriptures, I have had an absolute confirmation of priestly authority through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I have given you the Biblical support for it, you just don’t want to accept it, because your church has interpreted it differently. You are certainly free to believe as you wish, but that certainly does not invalidate my “witness”. As I said before, there is no one on earth that will ever convince me that Catholic priests don’t have this authority and that God doesn’t forgive my sins in this way. I know what I have experienced through the grace of God!

This also wasn’t brought into historical writings “by those who had already departed from Biblical teachings and doctrines”. Unless you are willing to contend that St. James and St. Paul were among those who had “already departed”. ??

“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” (James. 5:16)

2 Corinthians 2:10: “And to whom you have pardoned anything, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ” (Douay-Rheims).

Modern Bible translations, such as the Revised Standard Version, translate and interpret this verse very differently: “What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ.”

Paul, it is argued, simply forgave someone in the way any layperson can forgive someone for wrongs committed against him. The Greek word prosopon can be translated as “presence” or, as Catholics do, as “person,” giving this verse very different meanings.

The King James Version (clearly not a Catholic text) also translates prosopon as “person.” The early Christians too—who spoke and wrote in Koine Greek—used prosopon to refer to the “person” of Jesus Christ at the councils of Ephesus (A.D. 431) and Chalcedon (A.D. 451).

But even if one grants the translation “in the presence of Christ,” the fact remains that Paul forgave the sins of others. He did not, in fact, forgive an offense against himself, as all Christians can and must do. He said he forgave “for your sakes,” indicating that the sins did not involve him personally.

Three chapters later, Paul tells us: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). This is more than “the message of reconciliation” Paul mentions in verse 19 but rather the ministry of reconciliation that was Christ’s. Christ did more than preach a message of forgiveness; he forgave. catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609btb.asp

What Biblical support do you have that the only reason the apostles were involved was “to make sure that unrepentant persons did not partake of the communion unworthily, but that would not be by receiving confession of every sin a person committed”?

I’m not sure how much you know about the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation, but if you’re interested, you may find this helpful:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0005fea4.asp

Edit to add: Please read TheosisM’s post about repentance. Again, he explains it better than me.
To TheosisM: I certainly wish I had your gift of being able to explain things! May God Bless you and guide you!

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,

Have you ever attended a Catholic Mass?..or gone early and see people standing in line for confession?

I mean, don’t you think that learning Catholicism from your sources is comparable to second hand talk???

Like it keeps going and going and going, and then you end up with this Monster Church were priests and nuns and bishops and popes wear these funny clothes and tell us to eat meat once a week (of course in the past)…and heaven forbid!! They can’t marry and then stay on married in the next life and bear more soul children…??? So those that can’t deal with it have children in tunnels underground rectories and convents!!! This is the kind of stuff people spin on the Monster Church. You would think this is Halloween right now and not the beginnings of Christmas Eve…

I better be quiet now…St. Nick is starting to get ready and check out everybody 's house. I don’t want to be bad or naughty anymore.

But I say it in hopes that you will give birth to the Christ Child in your soul and Listen to Him about the Church. Jesus is God. He doesn’t make the mistakes…We do!!

The Apostles did a very good job in laying down the framework and foundation for their successors…after all, they had Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit guiding them!

Merry Christmas!

 

[ParkerD]

Sorry, Parker, but you are flat out wrong on this one. I don’t care what kind of spin you put on it or how you misinterpret the Scriptures, I have had an absolute confirmation of priestly authority through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I have given you the Biblical support for it, you just don’t want to accept it, because your church has interpreted it differently. You are certainly free to believe as you wish, but that certainly does not invalidate my “witness”. As I said before, there is no one on earth that will ever convince me that Catholic priests don’t have this authority and that God doesn’t forgive my sins in this way. I know what I have experienced through the grace of God!

This also wasn’t brought into historical writings “by those who had already departed from Biblical teachings and doctrines”. Unless you are willing to contend that St. James and St. Paul were among those who had “already departed”. ??

“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” (James. 5:16)

What Biblical support do you have that the only reason the apostles were involved was “to make sure that unrepentant persons did not partake of the communion unworthily, but that would not be by receiving confession of every sin a person committed”?

I’m not sure how much you know about the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation, but if you’re interested, you may find this helpful:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0005fea4.asp

Edit to add: Please read TheosisM’s post about repentance. Again, he explains it better than me.
To TheosisM: I certainly wish I had your gift of being able to explain things! May God Bless you and guide you!

Jay,
I liked the insert best in what you posted, explaining the different translations. James was talking about admitting we are all “at fault” and need to ask each other for forgiveness, often.

The apostles received a clear instruction from Christ, and there are clear examples in the epistles of the kinds of sins that required careful action by the apostles to not allow deeply serious sins to be on the heads of the people if they were going to partake of communion.

I looked up the subject of sin in the Catholic encyclopedia on this website after reading your post and that of TheosisM. I don’t suppose it is worthwhile for me (I don’t have time) or you (you have what you want, and are satisfied which is just fine) to go into all of the details of the non-Biblical orientation of the teachings, and it would continue to offend those such as Zaffiroborant and Kathleen anyway so we’ll just have to say we disagree profoundly.

TheosisM,
Thanks for the explanation–a good synopsis, well-written. Peace to each of you.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

Have you ever attended a Catholic Mass?..or gone early and see people standing in line for confession?

I mean, don’t you think that learning Catholicism from your sources is comparable to second hand talk???

Like it keeps going and going and going, and then you end up with this Monster Church were priests and nuns and bishops and popes wear these funny clothes and tell us to eat meat once a week (of course in the past)…and heaven forbid!! They can’t marry and then stay on married in the next life and bear more soul children…??? So those that can’t deal with it have children in tunnels underground rectories and convents!!! This is the kind of stuff people spin on the Monster Church. You would think this is Halloween right now and not the beginnings of Christmas Eve…

I better be quiet now…St. Nick is starting to get ready and check out everybody 's house. I don’t want to be bad or naughty anymore.

But I say it in hopes that you will give birth to the Christ Child in your soul and Listen to Him about the Church. Jesus is God. He doesn’t make the mistakes…We do!!

The Apostles did a very good job in laying down the framework and foundation for their successors…after all, they had Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit guiding them!

Merry Christmas!

Kathleen,
I’ve never learned much about Catholicism before happening upon this website, and have learned quite a bit that I didn’t know by reading here. Thanks for your interest in my welfare, and Merry Christmas to you also.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thank you and Goodie Gumdrops…

As you can see the Christmas spirit is quickly approaching this house…the animals are playing, my husband is enjoying making his food, and the Christmas music is soaring throughout on a cold, foggy night!

If you lived by me I would say, let’s have dinner…and maybe…go to a daily Mass and hear the priest and laity talk…

And some day I can go to your very nice people Mormon gatherings!!!

Let us build bridges and have the true understanding of one another as this is what God wants, that we all be brothers and sisters…

the more people talk and keep talking, things get straightened out and then together we are better than before because all the charisms every person has to offer is needed and used in the Lord’s Body…and we are happier and Catholics aren’t so crabby.

 

[Bataar]

Bataar,
The attestation of TheosisM and of Jay53 was that the Bible in and of itself provided the basis for doctrines that could be shown to be true and that the Holy Ghost had confirmed to them was true doctrine. So the question about “historical writings from the early church” is a wrong question. The question should be “where in the Bible do the bishops get the specific authority to forgive sins, or to represent Christ to the people?” These are wrong, non-Biblical doctrines, brought into the “historical writings” by those who had already departed from Biblical teachings and doctrines.

It’s definitely a valid question. In order to interpret them correctly we have to know what the writer intended them to mean. Often times, those are in external documents or writings. For example the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a direct disciple or St. John writes in his epistle to the Romans, “I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.” He was taught directly be St. John so we can use his writings to help us interpret sacred scripture.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Jay,
I liked the insert best in what you posted, explaining the different translations. James was talking about admitting we are all “at fault” and need to ask each other for forgiveness, often.

The apostles received a clear instruction from Christ, and there are clear examples in the epistles of the kinds of sins that required careful action by the apostles to not allow deeply serious sins to be on the heads of the people if they were going to partake of communion.

I looked up the subject of sin in the Catholic encyclopedia on this website after reading your post and that of TheosisM. I don’t suppose it is worthwhile for me (I don’t have time) or you (you have what you want, and are satisfied which is just fine) to go into all of the details of the non-Biblical orientation of the teachings, and it would continue to offend those such as Zaffiroborant and Kathleen anyway so we’ll just have to say we disagree profoundly.

TheosisM,
Thanks for the explanation–a good synopsis, well-written. Peace to each of you.

Funny, you seem to think it’s okay to call someone on misrepresenting LDS belief, why is it different for me or the others who call you on your error about our belief? You admit you didn’t know much about Catholicism before you came here (to defend LDS doctrine against people who misrepresented it, as I recall you saying) and yet you feel you are qualified to describe the Sacrament of Confession as you did.

The way you described confession is just as inaccurate a description as the “Mormons get to be Gods of their own planet” description of your beliefs that comes up so often.

 

[ParkerD]

Funny, you seem to think it’s okay to call someone on misrepresenting LDS belief, why is it different for me or the others who call you on your error about our belief? You admit you didn’t know much about Catholicism before you came here (to defend LDS doctrine against people who misrepresented it, as I recall you saying) and yet you feel you are qualified to describe the Sacrament of Confession as you did.

The way you described confession is just as inaccurate a description as the “Mormons get to be Gods of their own planet” description of your beliefs that comes up so often.

Zaffiroborant,
Point well taken. All I had tried to do was restate in the way I thought I understood what I was reading from what Jay had posted previously. But you’re certainly right about the wrongness of inaccurate assumptions about people’s beliefs, including so many about those of the LDS faith such as you noted.

 

[ParkerD]

It’s definitely a valid question. In order to interpret them correctly we have to know what the writer intended them to mean. Often times, those are in external documents or writings. For example the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a direct disciple or St. John writes in his epistle to the Romans, “I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.” He was taught directly be St. John so we can use his writings to help us interpret sacred scripture.

Bataar,
I understand that such writings are a vital foundation for the beliefs you have. I simply disagree that just because a person was taught by an apostle, (whether or not it is true about Ignatius), does not make that student/person an authority nor authorized in any way to say that they are an authority nor that they are authorized to teach others as though they do have some special knowledge or special privileged information. But to each their own.

Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones.

 

[TheosisM]

To clarify on the writings on the Early Church Fathers:

Catholic beliefs are not founded on the writings of the ECFs. They are not authoritative (unless the person in question was writing in some sort of “official” capacity, by virtue of their priesthood office, or in Council), and are not equivalent to the public revelation found in the Bible or in Sacred Tradition. However, reference to the ECFs is important in that we gain a glimpse into how the early Christians believed and worshipped, and how they viewed the Church itself. They are historical writings of historical importance to Christianity. Not everything they said was completely correct (the same goes for the theologians and the ordained today). Studying the ECFs allows us to think “well, that belief wasn’t found among the writings of the early Christians, or was seen as heretical, so when did that innovation come up?” The same goes for the writings of the Fathers (and Mothers) of today. Interestingly, a number of apologists from various churches, including Mormonism, reference the ECFs to show some form of doctrinal continuity with the ancient Christians. Therefore it is necessary to read the entirety of their writings, and not just the proof texts given by the apologists, Catholic ones included.

And again, ECF writings are not authoritative and are not equivalent to the revelation found in the Bible. Their purpose is strictly historical.

 

[Jay53]

Jay,
I liked the insert best in what you posted, explaining the different translations. James was talking about admitting we are all “at fault” and need to ask each other for forgiveness, often.

The apostles received a clear instruction from Christ, and there are clear examples in the epistles of the kinds of sins that required careful action by the apostles to not allow deeply serious sins to be on the heads of the people if they were going to partake of communion.

You are right! The Apostles received the Holy Spirit and were told “whose sins you forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you retain they are retained.” Very clear instruction from Christ!
And the early Christians, including the Apostles practiced this and passed it down to their successors. You are also right that those who had/have committed serious (mortal) sins are not to partake of the Eucharist, precisely because it is the Body and Blood of Christ.

I looked up the subject of sin in the Catholic encyclopedia on this website after reading your post and that of TheosisM. I don’t suppose it is worthwhile for me (I don’t have time) or you (you have what you want, and are satisfied which is just fine) to go into all of the details of the non-Biblical orientation of the teachings, and it would continue to offend those such as Zaffiroborant and Kathleen anyway so we’ll just have to say we disagree profoundly.

While I would find your details interesting, I can guarantee that they would not change my mind about this. So, in that respect I suppose you wouldn’t find it worthwhile. I can agree to disagree with you on this issue. You had just asked for something that the Holy Spirit had affirmed to me and I gave it. This is one of those things in my life that I have absolutely no doubt about. One of the others is my answered prayer from Jesus through a novena to St. Therese. (If you’re not familiar with her, here is some info. littleflower.org/abouttherese/learn/index.asp). Either way, the fact that I have had this confirmation, along with the fact that the Church has been practicing this for 2000 years and still does today is all I need to know.

TheosisM,
Thanks for the explanation–a good synopsis, well-written. Peace to each of you.

Peace to you to, Parker. And Merry Christmas to you and your family! :hug1: )

 

[KathleenGee]

TheosisM,

Thank you for further clarifying the work of the Church Fathers, and that there are differences of practices and teachings, and then there are those contributions by the Church Fathers regarding laws, etc.

I readily concur. References do show a general recognition of the same culture we see today, but not completely.

The Church development is always growing and drawing new peoples and culture…and this process of assimilation, inculturation and ensuring the Apostolic faith is passed on is very time consuming and always is the work of many people. It is very complex and very vulnerable as well to misinterpretation, especially by those who come from religious sources that have a complete break with our church…the less that is broken, somewhat easier the understanding.

Merry Christmas to you!

 

[KathleenGee]

The other point that needs to be drawn up, and I would need others more comprehensive background to expound on this, but not all our teachings come from Sacred Scripture but from Sacred Tradition and the practices of the Church through the ages and in regards to the work of inculturation and retention of the Apostolic faith.

It was the laity that wanted devotion to Mary become a church practice. It wasn’t until millenium that Mary was called conceived without sin.

Scriptures say Christians are to avoid eating blood, animals offered for sacrifice, or that found dead. We began the practice of not eating meat on a certain day in memory of Our Lord’s crucifixion.

We Catholics have our approach to Sacred Scripture. It is to be attentive to the intent, message and content of Scripture with the same Holy Spirit of yesterday as today. You have to take into account the literal, moral, analogical, and angogical (heavenly sense) of Scripture…

But Scripture must be understood in the wholeness of the Spirit of God not parts, and bits and pieces where they end up being disconnected…and such interpretations of parts can lead to communities breaking away from the church.

So we have Sacred Tradition keeping the integrity of Scripture with God as Author and in the right interpretation taking the intent of Scripture from its whole.

Our Church values the four pillars of our faith…we are one, we are holy – our souce not of ourselves but in Jesus Christ and His visible sacraments, He within them, Apostolic-- our tradition of faith coming from the Apostles, and Catholic…universal meant for all mankind. This is the big Tradition. The little traditions are those such as abstaining from meat that change. The small ecclesia traditions can change…they may be different with different practices in different cultures.

I think the posts shared on the sacrament of reconciliation are quite good. There is a mainline protestant couple coming into the Church through our Rite of Christian Initation. When we covered reconciliation, they looked at the pastor with wary eyes. We later shared that we have our prayer of confession set up, it is a rite we learn, we go in, follow the norm, the priest might comment or assure or direct, and then give absolution. I don’t like going and most of us don’t. But at the end of confession, such a sense of the sacred and of healing comes going through the ritual. Christ is there and it is not the same as confessing something to a dear friend in confidence…you get some healing with friends, but not like the confessional…Christ is there in His power. He is great and all powerful and I am not even thinking of the priest. The priest is intercessor of the power of God working through the sacraments, given on the night of the Ressurection.