Non-Catholic (protestant) authority

[Justin1982]

I don’t see why you would need to tell someone other than God your sins, He is the only one who can forgive them. So If I ask God to forgive me my sins or pray that he forgives me of my sins, God won’t hear my asking or my prayers for forgiveness? He will turn a deaf ear because I didn’t go tell a priest first? So what you are saying is that I have to go to a priest tell him my sins then the priest goes and tells the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit goes to God and askes to forgive me? I have to go through 2 persons (sort of speaking) before God will forgive me my sins? I think its easer to just go to God myself and ask for forgiveness. Can you provide me where it says that God will only forgive you through the priesthood and by way of the Holy Spirit.

I believe that I had given the Bible reference at least that puts it the most plainly in my head. So based on that and a sola scripture mentality I’m not sure I can paint it any better for you. Jesus clearly stated to the disciples, “receive the holy Spirit”. Then He goes on to say to the disciples “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” How else are they to know whose sins to forgive and whose to retain unless the people are telling them their sins? Essentially what it boils down to is that Jesus said to do it in this manner thus what is a church founded by Jesus himself to do but institute the Sacrament of Confession.
To aid in better understanding of Catholic teaching as I’ve been given is that in a physical world a physical being who has committed a physical sin should inherently speak to a physical person. People have ways of deceiving themselves and end up “bartering” with God to help them feel that they have absolved themselves from their sin. If you don’t think that happens, I should know I used to do it when I was just an agnostic.
You stated that the priest, after hearing the confession, speaks to the Holy Spirit and then the Holy Spirit goes to God. That logic kind of hints at a break down in the Holy Trinity but that is another discussion all together. For me it essentially is one of the mysteries of faith that transcend human understanding, if you can fully understand your God then he is too small.
I hope this explanation clears things up a bit, I’ve rewritten this a few times so I hope it doesn’t come out too scrambled.

 

[Joshua27]

I believe that I had given the Bible reference at least that puts it the most plainly in my head. So based on that and a sola scripture mentality I’m not sure I can paint it any better for you. Jesus clearly stated to the disciples, “receive the holy Spirit”. Then He goes on to say to the disciples “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” How else are they to know whose sins to forgive and whose to retain unless the people are telling them their sins? Essentially what it boils down to is that Jesus said to do it in this manner thus what is a church founded by Jesus himself to do but institute the Sacrament of Confession.
To aid in better understanding of Catholic teaching as I’ve been given is that in a physical world a physical being who has committed a physical sin should inherently speak to a physical person. People have ways of deceiving themselves and end up “bartering” with God to help them feel that they have absolved themselves from their sin. If you don’t think that happens, I should know I used to do it when I was just an agnostic.
You stated that the priest, after hearing the confession, speaks to the Holy Spirit and then the Holy Spirit goes to God. That logic kind of hints at a break down in the Holy Trinity but that is another discussion all together. For me it essentially is one of the mysteries of faith that transcend human understanding, if you can fully understand your God then he is too small.
I hope this explanation clears things up a bit, I’ve rewritten this a few times so I hope it doesn’t come out too scrambled.

…So then I guess the real question is, “who receives the Holy Spirit of God and becomes disciples of God, and who can not”?

1 Corinthians 6:17 - But the person who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him.

1 Corinthians 6:19 - Don’t you realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself.

Peter was talking about sexual immorality when he wrote this, but he made a declaration of a fact that superseeded any sinful act (such as sexual sins). Everyone who joins with the Lord becomes one in spirit and receives the Holy Spirit.

So what about becoming priests?

1 Peter 2:9 - But ye are a chosen generation (seed/children), a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

1 Peter 2:10 - Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

This passage says the Chosen Seed (generation) = Royal Priesthood = Holy Nation = Peculiar People = People of God. They are all equated.

So if priests can forgive sins, and if the People of God ARE a Royal Priesthood, can’t we - as the People of God - forgive sins in God’s name and with God’s Holy Spirit?

 

[seamusmohr]

They have organizational authority, but do they believe that their decisions are infallibly guided and protected by the Holy Spirit? If so, why do they think that? I mean no disrespect - I’m just very interested in this topic.

Anglicans do believe this as well as Orthodox! Both simply do not believe the system at present in use in the Roman Church has any warrant either in Scripture or Tradition! Certainly the Anglicans do believe in conciliar authority, as an Anglican I can’t speak for the Orthodox, but from reading their lit, it is the impression I get…

They believe,[both of them,] that authority,[magisterium] is held by the College of Bishops through the agency of the Councils and by the guidance of the Holy Ghost! [Acts15.]

 

[SSTeacher]

I can’t speak for all Protestant denominations, but a seriously Biblical Protestant would tell you that the Scriptures—opened up by the Holy Spirit to the believer—are sufficient, in the vein of:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16)

When I was an Evangelical (SOLO Scriptura) Christian I’d have endorsed the above but I would probably have added that I considered the Bible to be God’s backup plan in that He knew disagreements, divisions and waywardness would begin immediately after Pentecost and had therefore prepared in advance for the Bible eventually to become the means by which He would lead people away from the waywardness and back to the path that leads to holiness.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[rev_kevin]

You’re right, Rev. You aren’t ready for the jump to Rome if this is how you feel about confession! Better hold off on the ordinariate, you’re parsecs away from the Catholic view of reconciliation…

Instead of being sarcastic, I noticed that you did not answer any of the questions. So why don’t you tell me how it goes because if you read what Justin 1982 wrote it said, “It is indeed God who forgives sin but it is through the priesthood by the way of the Holy Spirit that we are forgiven.” So I took it as you go to the priest and tell him your sins, then the priest goes to the Holy Spirit and tells your sins to him, then the Holy Spirit goes to God to ask God to forgive you of your sins. I did not say that is how I feel about confession. That is how Justin seemed to put it.

Who said I wanted to jump to Rome. I never said that.

 

[dnu]

There is no “conference” with the spirit who then goes and “conferences” with God.

The Priest acts “in persona Christi.” That is, in the person of Christ. The Priest has the authority to forgive sins right then and there in the name of Christ through the authority of the Apostolic Succession instituted by Christ himself.

This clearly laid out in John 20:22-23. There is absolutely no ambiguity in this passage. Jesus gave the 11 the authority to act in his name, period. Then, through the laying on of hands, their successors, and the Priests the Bishops appoint (also through the laying on of hands and the “sharing” of their ordination) can also act in this capacity.

The sacrament of Holy Orders is different from the “Priesthood of all believers” in Peters book.

 

[rev_kevin]

I believe that I had given the Bible reference at least that puts it the most plainly in my head. So based on that and a sola scripture mentality I’m not sure I can paint it any better for you. Jesus clearly stated to the disciples, “receive the holy Spirit”. Then He goes on to say to the disciples “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” How else are they to know whose sins to forgive and whose to retain unless the people are telling them their sins? Essentially what it boils down to is that Jesus said to do it in this manner thus what is a church founded by Jesus himself to do but institute the Sacrament of Confession.
To aid in better understanding of Catholic teaching as I’ve been given is that in a physical world a physical being who has committed a physical sin should inherently speak to a physical person. People have ways of deceiving themselves and end up “bartering” with God to help them feel that they have absolved themselves from their sin. If you don’t think that happens, I should know I used to do it when I was just an agnostic.
You stated that the priest, after hearing the confession, speaks to the Holy Spirit and then the Holy Spirit goes to God. That logic kind of hints at a break down in the Holy Trinity but that is another discussion all together. For me it essentially is one of the mysteries of faith that transcend human understanding, if you can fully understand your God then he is too small.
I hope this explanation clears things up a bit, I’ve rewritten this a few times so I hope it doesn’t come out too scrambled.

And I believe that I explained the Bible verse that you gave me. I don’t know how much planer I can get for you. But incase you didn’t understand it here it is again, Jesus was giving the disciples their Spirit-powered and Spirit-guided mission, to preach the Good News about Jesus so people’s sins might be forgiven. The disciples did not have the power to forgive sins.{only God can forgive sins}. You have given me one Scripture in the attempt make what you have said to be fact. I have given 4 Scriptures that means only God can forgive sin and the explination of each. I even had to correct Spencerian on Mark 2:7 when he said that the whole crowd questioned Jesus, which is not true.
How do they know what sins to forgive and what sins not to forgive?
If someone sins against you are you to forgive them?
Sorry but this physical sin thing telling a physical person seems pretty strange, What is a physical sin?
Just because you bartered with God don’t mean that everyone who tells God their sins do the same.
The priest, Holy Spirit thing is how you discribed it works.
My God is the same God you have. I don’t claim to fully understand God but it seem like the CC does after all they are infallible and can’t be wrong in their teachings.

 

[Justin1982]

…So then I guess the real question is, “who receives the Holy Spirit of God and becomes disciples of God, and who can not”?

1 Corinthians 6:17 - But the person who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him.

1 Corinthians 6:19 - Don’t you realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself.

Peter was talking about sexual immorality when he wrote this, but he made a declaration of a fact that superseeded any sinful act (such as sexual sins). Everyone who joins with the Lord becomes one in spirit and receives the Holy Spirit.

So what about becoming priests?

1 Peter 2:9 - But ye are a chosen generation (seed/children), a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

1 Peter 2:10 - Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

This passage says the Chosen Seed (generation) = Royal Priesthood = Holy Nation = Peculiar People = People of God. They are all equated.

So if priests can forgive sins, and if the People of God ARE a Royal Priesthood, can’t we - as the People of God - forgive sins in God’s name and with God’s Holy Spirit?

These are all great quotes but it was Jesus Himself that said my previous quote. The entire basis for the Catholic Church was brought forth by Jesus himself. It wasn’t until after Luther that we had these ideas that we needed to re-interpret Jesus. There is immense beauty in the Catholic form of worship (not to downplay everyone else’s at all) and everything happens for a reason, Catholic teaching is based on Scripture yes, but also on Sacred Tradition.

(in response to Rev Kevin) Sorry if I was being confusing but the way it was intended was because the priest is endowed by the Holy Spirit he does not have to talk directly to God. I think what may also assist you is knowing that priests and even the Pope himself goes to confession. I told my High Anglican friend (who does not have a formal means of confession) that and he changed his mind on the whole Sacrament of Confession.

 

[Justin1982]

There is no “conference” with the spirit who then goes and “conferences” with God.

The Priest acts “in persona Christi.” That is, in the person of Christ. The Priest has the authority to forgive sins right then and there in the name of Christ through the authority of the Apostolic Succession instituted by Christ himself.

This clearly laid out in John 20:22-23. There is absolutely no ambiguity in this passage. Jesus gave the 11 the authority to act in his name, period. Then, through the laying on of hands, their successors, and the Priests the Bishops appoint (also through the laying on of hands and the “sharing” of their ordination) can also act in this capacity.

The sacrament of Holy Orders is different from the “Priesthood of all believers” in Peters book.

Thanks, I was fearing that I may have had to go in depth into persona Christi if I had mentioned it but it seems futile to explain confession without it.

 

[dnu]

Our brother rev kevin seems to be suffering from the atypical Protestant “biblical demi-god and book-idolatry” syndrome.

It happens to the best of us I guess.

 

[Nicea325]

**All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16) **

The above verse has been taken out-of-context way to long to prove Sola Scriptura. Notice the first word: ALL. Does not say: ONLY scripture is…

Likewise, ALL is not referring to a one volume book called the Bible. And why? The NT was not complete nor was their an official Christian canon. Furthermore,one can easily use the term **ALL **loosely and apply it to every single Gospel or letter written. So one can have Sola Matthew,Mark,etc,etc.

Sola Scriptura simply does not fly and it is not biblical at all.

 

[dnu]

In other words, the verse in 2 Timothy says:

“The Old Testament (the only scripture availalbe at that time) is useful for preaching about Jesus.”

How Protestants can read that as “The New Testament is totally sufficient for all Christianity” is beyond me.

 

[Justin1982]

Catholic Answers explains the Sacrament of Confession and where we get it from here:

catholic.com/library/Confession.asp

 

[Nicea325]

And I believe that I explained the Bible verse that you gave me. I don’t know how much planer I can get for you. But incase you didn’t understand it here it is again, Jesus was giving the disciples their Spirit-powered and Spirit-guided mission, to preach the Good News about Jesus so people’s sins might be forgiven. The disciples did not have the power to forgive sins.{only God can forgive sins}. You have given me one Scripture in the attempt make what you have said to be fact. I have given 4 Scriptures that means only God can forgive sin and the explination of each. I even had to correct Spencerian on Mark 2:7 when he said that the whole crowd questioned Jesus, which is not true.
How do they know what sins to forgive and what sins not to forgive?
If someone sins against you are you to forgive them?
Sorry but this physical sin thing telling a physical person seems pretty strange, What is a physical sin?
Just because you bartered with God don’t mean that everyone who tells God their sins do the same.
The priest, Holy Spirit thing is how you discribed it works.
My God is the same God you have. I don’t claim to fully understand God but it seem like the CC does after all they are infallible and can’t be wrong in their teachings.

Nope! Not true at all.

God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, “‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (John 20:21–23).

Explain how this is not referring to the Apostles to forgive sins?

“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” (Matt. 18:18).

Explain what bind and loose meant?

This power was understood as coming from God: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, “So we are ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor. 5:20).

This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.

 

[Justin1982]

In other words, the verse in 2 Timothy says:

“The Old Testament (the only scripture availalbe at that time) is useful for preaching about Jesus.”

How Protestants can read that as “The New Testament is totally sufficient for all Christianity” is beyond me.

It is a bit hard to carry the scripture argument through a period of time when books weren’t readily available until recent history and even more so is the fact that most people couldn’t read. Tradition is what carried us through the early Church years, there would be no scripture without the early bishops.

 

[JonNC]

**All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16) **

The above verse has been taken out-of-context way to long to prove Sola Scriptura. Notice the first word: ALL. Does not say: ONLY scripture is…

Likewise, ALL is not referring to a one volume book called the Bible. And why? The NT was not complete nor was their an official Christian canon. Furthermore,one can easily use the term **ALL **loosely and apply it to every single Gospel or letter written. So one can have Sola Matthew,Mark,etc,etc.

Sola Scriptura simply does not fly and it is not biblical at all.

As a practice, sola scriptura was applied by Moses at Sinai. For Moses, scripture was the 10 commandments. The practice of sola scriptura is simply the requirement that all teachers and teachings not contradict scripture.

If one were to accept the books you mention as scripture, then the practice of sola scriptura would be applied to them. When a canon of scripture is set, then sola scriptura is applied to it. SS does not determine what the canon is, since it is simply a practice of holding all teachers and teachings accountable to scripture.
Sola scriptura also does not exclude teachers and teachings, nor is it intended to. It only says that scripture is the final norm, to which all teachers and teachings are accountable .
So, Lutherans accept the early ecumenical councils. The three ecumenical creeds make up the very first section of the Book of Concord, the Lutheran confessions.
Properly, those who practice sola scriptura embrace Tradition. Those who reject Traditions, creeds, confessions and teachings simply because they “don’t appear in the Bible”, are not practicing sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[RedBert]

Protestants have the same authority as “Priscilla and Aquila” who instructed St. Paul

In Acts 18:26 “He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.’

Who gave Priscilla and Aquila the authority to teach St. Paul?
So what Pope, Council, or Magisterium did Priscilla and Aquila submit to?

Protestant even have the same authority as Polycarp and his Letter to the Philippians”
He quotes from the Book of Ephesians and calls it Scripture.

Who gave Polycarp the authority to deicide Ephesians was scripture?
So what Pope, Council, or Magisterium did Polycarp submit to?

You may not realize it, but Protestants are also part of the universal Church of Christ.

 

[JonNC]

It is a bit hard to carry the scripture argument through a period of time when books weren’t readily available until recent history and even more so is the fact that most people couldn’t read. Tradition is what carried us through the early Church years, there would be no scripture without the early bishops.

Of course there was scripture in the early years of the Church. Christ often said, “it is written”. He was referring to scripture. That the writings of the Gospels and epistles were not compiled yet goes unsaid. But the teachings were there.

As I said above, prpoperly, sola scriptura as a practice does not reject Tradition, but instead embraces it.

Jon

 

[spirit2534]

There is no “conference” with the spirit who then goes and “conferences” with God.

The Priest acts “in persona Christi.” That is, in the person of Christ. The Priest has the authority to forgive sins right then and there in the name of Christ through the authority of the Apostolic Succession instituted by Christ himself.

This clearly laid out in John 20:22-23. There is absolutely no ambiguity in this passage. Jesus gave the 11 the authority to act in his name, period. Then, through the laying on of hands, their successors, and the Priests the Bishops appoint (also through the laying on of hands and the “sharing” of their ordination) can also act in this capacity.

The sacrament of Holy Orders is different from the “Priesthood of all believers” in Peters book.

Is this intended to suggest that a priest is acting as Christ would have done?
Is this intended to say all Bishops & Priests are infallible in their judgements just as Christ was?

 

[mark_a]

Of course there was scripture in the early years of the Church. Christ often said, “it is written”. He was referring to scripture. That the writings of the Gospels and epistles were not compiled yet goes unsaid. But the teachings were there.

As I said above, prpoperly, sola scriptura as a practice does not reject Tradition, but instead embraces it.

Jon

Jon,

You know this is untrue for the vast majority of Protestants. Tradition has become a dirty word for most.