People the Preist?

[Montie_Claunch]

I am talking with a fundamentalist and on the subject of Confession he said “If we are supposed to go to a ‘Priest’ then you need to keep in mind that we are those priests. We are supposed to take our own sins to God not some man.” citing 1st Peter 2:5,9 and Revelation 1:5,6. What should I say to this? Thanks and God bless.

 

[Verita]

Passage James 5:16:
16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

 

[Franciscan]

The specific authority of “loosing” or freeing or absolving one from their sins was given to the Ordained priests at that time-the Apostles. Jn 21:21-23. And passed on through Holy Orders

The “common preisthood” received in baptism allows us to offer prayer and personal sufferings in union with Christs. Can we go to God and seek forgiveness for sins on our own?Yes, but the certitude of absolution rests with authority given to ordained priests in the sacrament of confession.

The priest not only mediates before God but also he represents the Church, the body of Christ to which we are united. So he reconciles us to both. How could we confess to all members of the Church? Istead, the priest is their representative.

 

[scylla]

I would also point out that James should be read in context and this passage James 5:16 is talking about the Elders(Priests) who can pray over someone and God will forgive their sins.

We are a priestly people, yet there are those who have the Authority by being sent by others to play a special role in the Church.

I would also suggest that you don’t just stick on the defensive but get some offensive going. Since the Bible says we should confess our sins to one another then Catholics are indeed following Scripture by confessing their sins. We just have a different interpretation, and I am pretty sure this fundamentalist doesn’t make an examination of concience and confess his sins to his fellow man.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Lillith]

I am talking with a fundamentalist and on the subject of Confession he said “If we are supposed to go to a ‘Priest’ then you need to keep in mind that we are those priests. We are supposed to take our own sins to God not some man.” citing 1st Peter 2:5,9 and Revelation 1:5,6. What should I say to this? Thanks and God bless.

mmmmk. He acknowledges that we should confess our sins to priests…calls each and every one of us a priest…but then turns around and says to take our sins to God alone?

This isn’t logical.

 

[Veritas41]

I think first you have to establish evidence for a ministerial priesthood. The Old Testament Jews had a concept of “priesthood of believers” (Exodus 19:60) but they also had a ministerial priesthood that alone was authorized to offer sacrifices to God. So in the OT you had the High Priest, the ministerial priests under him and the priesthood of believers, the laity. We have a perfect parallel on the New Testament with Jesus as the High Priest, a ministerial (sacramental) priesthood and priesthood of believers (laity).

During His public ministry, Jesus gave His disciples (only the twelve, not all who followed Him) the authority and power to do the same things He was doing in His public ministry (healing the sick and casting out evil spirits) Matthew 10:1 (Matthew 9 shows Jesus, just prior to this, healing and casting out evil spirits). In Matthew 26:26-29, Jesus uses the language of sacrifice with the apostles when He first offers His body and then His blood – in Old Testament sacrifices the blood was drained (separated) from the sacrificial animal. So Jesus is here offering His body and blood in sacrifice for sin. And He asks his apostles, and only them, to perpetuate the offering of this sacrifice (“Do this in remembrance of me” Luke 22:19) In John 20:19-23 Jesus gives only His apostles the authority to forgive and retain sins, another aspect of His earthly ministry. And right before His Ascencion into heaven, He gives the Great Commission to His apostles to preach, teach and baptize, making disciples (Matthew 28:18-20), giving them His own authority. Not all Christians share that same authority.

One of the arguments Protestants have against the priesthood is that it is no longer necessary because there is no longer any sacrifice now that Jesus has died. But looking at Hebrews 9;23 indicates otherwise – it speaks of “better sacrifices” (plural, not singular) of the new covenant compared to the sacrifices of the old covenant. The only way the sacrifices of the new covenant can be better is that they actually take away sin, so how do we reconcile that with the idea of their being only one sacrifice that eliminates all other sacrifice and the need for a ministerial priesthood? Because the new sacrifices are Jesus Christ’s very own Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity offered up in an unbloody manner (not all sacrifice requires killing), which alone can atone for sin. Hebrews 13:10 mentions “we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.” “We” are Christians, and we have an “altar” and altars are for sacrifice, and something edible (“have no right to eat”) is offered upon it. It’s not a sacrifice of praise or worship like some Protestants try to interpret it because you can’t eat praise and worship. That something edible is Jesus, and He is offered up by priests acting in His person.

Jude 8-11, speaking of men who “reject authority” who “perish in Korah’s rebellion.” If you go back to the Old Testament, Korah’s rebellion was against the ministerial priesthood. There had to have been a ministerial priesthood established in the Church for the men Jude is speaking of to be guilty of “Korah’s rebellion.”

James 5, cited in another post ties in with all this because it speaks of calling the “elders” so that the person may receiving healing and have sins forgiven. An “elder” is a priest, not just another layman, otherwise why specify “elders” for prayer for healing and forgiveness?

 

[neophyte]

There was an article in This Rock about the sin of Korah. I don’t remember when, but it stuck in my mind and later on I wrote this in response to a similar question:

Chapter 16 of the book of Numbers relates the story of a rebellion in which Korah the son of Kohath rose up against the leadership of Moses. The complaint was that Moses had no authority to set himself in a special position above the rest of the people because the entire nation, every individual, was holy.

In response, Moses said “Isn’t it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the Lord’s tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them? He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too. It is against the Lord that you and all your followers have banded together.” Note carefully that Korah’s sin was that he was attempting to usurp for himself a ministerial role that was given by God to only a limited number of the people, and most specifically he was rebelling against the teaching authority that God had given to Moses. You can read the entire chapter to find out what happened to Korah and his followers.

Now turn to the book of Jude, specifically verses 8, 10-11: “In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings… Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals–these are the very things that destroy them. Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion.”

Here we have the Apostle Jude specifically saying that there are those among the believers who are actively engaging in the rebellion of Korah: the rejection of the God-given authority of a Magesterial class in the Church, and the desire to usurp for themselves the unique role of the ministerial priesthood. In order for this to be true, such a ministerial priesthood must have existed as a distinct and legitimate part of the structure of the church. Furthermore, as the fulfillment of the OT class of ministerial priesthood, the NT priesthood would have been understood to be a hierarchical office of dynastic succession in keeping with the prefigurement of the OT. This office would include, as did the OT priesthood, the legitimate exercise of the functions of public worship, offering of sacrifices, the teaching of doctrine, and making binding juridical decisions. Still further, those believers not holding that office would be obligated as a matter of the faith to submit to the teachings and disciplines of the ministerial priesthood, again as were the OT Israelites. If it were not so, then those of whom Jude speaks could not have been guilty of the sin of Kohath - and yet on the authority of Christ himself speaking through the Apostle Jude, they were.

 

[mdcpensive1]

You have a very good understanding of the priesthood of which I can only add a few things. Since our faith comes from the Jews, on the day of atonement, sacrifices were to be offered yearly in the temple. The high priest cannot attend to all the offerings to be brought to the alter so other priests were needed to “intercede on behalf of the people”. This has followed through into the New Covenant.
In the book “Salvation is from the Jews”, an interesting fact was that when the priest took the sacrifice from the people and came back, the headband turned from white to red to signify the acceptance of the sacrifice. An interesting point is that after the destruction of the temple in 70AD, this no longer happened. Could it be that the sacrament of reconciliation now replaces the old blood offerings to atone for our sins???
mdcpensive1

 

[imroc]

I know you’re probably tire of hearing the old Scott Hahn answer, but the series that’s been on EWTN, weekly with Mike Aquelina, called “Lord have mercy” has been pretty good. I record it on DVR and the recent show talks about how confession has it’s differences throughout the ages and even in different cultures, but still remains as a sacrament with the same fundamentals…if I remember right:
1)Confession
2)Contrition
3)Penance

Basically, as the Bible states, confess your sins. But over the years, the sacrament has evolved. The idea that one confesses to a priests, because the prayers of the righteous are powerful, Christ gave the Church the power to absolve and even retain sins. That’s great and all, but the priest can also get at the heart of your sins and help you eradicate what it is that makes you sin. You learn from your sins, by being ministered by the very priests that are extensions of Christ’s priesthood! What does one learn from their sins when they just pray straight to God? Well, sometimes they can learn, but we are to confess to one another.

I prefer to confess to a priest because he has the God given power to absolve and the grace to help me as a fellow human get to the root.

Ask him if he’d like to do it like some of the ancient churches, where you confessed your specific sins to the whole congregation?! Ouch! Talking about humbling one’s self! Heck, maybe we should go back to that for a couple years and maybe some people would appreciate a little one-on-one?

 

[happygal]

We can confess our sin to one another and let others pray for you. However only the sinless have the authority to absorbing human Sins, which is none other then God. Don’t forget priest is human by nature carries sin, so how can someone (example a priest who is sinning against God) and yet absorbing others sin?? Even if the priest can absorb sin, i would rather the priest (if is in the stage of sinning) to reconcile with God before he can do anything. But since the priest might be sinning against God, then i believe everyday he is praying for confession to God then confess his sins to another priest!!

 

[NotWorthy]

We can confess our sin to one another and let others pray for you. However only the sinless have the authority to absorbing human Sins, which is none other then God. Don’t forget priest is human by nature carries sin, so how can someone (example a priest who is sinning against God) and yet absorbing others sin?? Even if the priest can absorb sin, i would rather the priest (if is in the stage of sinning) to reconcile with God before he can do anything. But since the priest might be sinning against God, then i believe everyday he is praying for confession to God then confess his sins to another priest!!

The Sacrament of Confession functions “ex opere operato” which means it is Jesus that absolves (not absorbs) our sins. The priest can be the most immoral guy immaginable and yet still absolve us of our sins, for it is Jeus who is forgiving us.

 

[happygal]

The Sacrament of Confession functions “ex opere operato” which means it is Jesus that absolves (not absorbs) our sins. The priest can be the most immoral guy immaginable and yet still absolve us of our sins, for it is Jeus who is forgiving us.

Ooppss…what a silly spelling error…haha…ok absolves means free/forgive our sin. For the Catholic, Priest is the viscar of Christ, thus you would believe he can absolves your sin (i respect that), for me it is also not wrong for me to believe that only God himself have the authority to forgive my sins, i still can go for confession to one another, but only the sinless have the power to absolves human sin. Which is God. Human fall short of God glory thus they carry sin by nature, thus i prefer a 100% absolves by God and reconcilation with God through prayers and fasting…

 

[NotWorthy]

Ooppss…what a silly spelling error…haha…ok absolves means free/forgive our sin. For the Catholic, Priest is the viscar of Christ, thus you would believe he can absolves your sin (i respect that), for me it is also not wrong for me to believe that only God himself have the authority to forgive my sins, i still can go for confession to one another, but only the sinless have the power to absolves human sin. Which is God. Human fall short of God glory thus they carry sin by nature, thus i prefer a 100% absolves by God and reconcilation with God through prayers and fasting…

Were the Apostles sinless? Obviously they were not. But Jesus granted them the power to forgive sins in His name.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Hello Happygal
If I can help with the understanding I’ll try.
You are right in the fact that only God can forgive sins. It is not the priest. However, the priest stands in the place of Christ and absolves sins “in the name of Christ” only after he hears them and desides that there is sincerity in the confession. If he determines there is not sincerity, he can “retain” instead of absolve, according to the sacrament given by Christ to the Church.
mdcpensive1

 

[happygal]

Notworthy/Mcdpensive

I understand what you mean by that, i have mentioned from another NON CATHOLIC thread regarding about confession to priest. Ok the word absolve have different meaning, it can refer to clear/forgive/release. I understand that as Christian we hate sin, but we are to forgive sinners, thus it fullfill the bible scripture of confession of sin to one another and thus i agree with the Catholicism explanation, however we have to understand that the priest does not have the right to clear/release our sin, only God have the authority, thus it is important for us to lift up all our sin to God for forgiveness and seek him to release our sin.

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy/Mcdpensive

I understand what you mean by that, i have mentioned from another NON CATHOLIC thread regarding about confession to priest. Ok the word absolve have different meaning, it can refer to clear/forgive/release. I understand that as Christian we hate sin, but we are to forgive sinners, thus it fullfill the bible scripture of confession of sin to one another and thus i agree with the Catholicism explanation, however we have to understand that the priest does not have the right to clear/release our sin, only God have the authority, thus it is important for us to lift up all our sin to God for forgiveness and seek him to release our sin.

Happygal, you sound like you’re making a distinction between taking our sins to the priest and “lifting up all our sin to God for forgiveness and seek him to release our sin”.

You’re right, Jesus has the authority to forgive sins. And He gave that authority to the Apostles. Did the need to forgive sins die with the Apostles. You know it didn’t. Thus He passed on that authority to the Church.

When we confess our sins to the priest, we ARE lifting up ours sins to God for forgiveness, just as Jesus wanted us to do.

 

[havemercy]

Objection 1: Hebrews 7 talks about the High Priesthood of Jesus - not any Apostolic priesthood.

Objection 2: The only Biblical priesthood under Jesus is the preisthood of the believer - of every believer. There is no other priesthood.

Objections 3: Biblically, there is no powers given to clergy that isn’t given to other Christians. If so, show it to me in the Bible. And I’m not contradicting the church - I’m only contradicting Catholic tradition which is correct only as it agrees with the scripture.

 

[CollegeKid]

It’s not a sacrifice of praise or worship like some Protestants try to interpret it because you can’t eat praise and worship. That something edible is Jesus, and He is offered up by priests acting in His person.

From Scripture Catholic:

Heb. 13:15 - this “sacrifice of praise” refers to the actual sacrifice or “toda” offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.

So in essence I agree with you, Veritas, the Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice in which we eat Christ’s body and blood, but I think the thing about protestants and the “sacrifice of praise” is that they misunderstand what the “sacrifice of praise” is. It*** is*** the Eucharist. It’s not just praising God. Its offering up real flesh and blood to him.