Priest necessary for confession?

[Pitcharan]

Hello everyone!

I’ve been asked a question, as a Catholic, I can’t really answer. I’m talking to a “non-denominational” Protestant about confessing sins. She says this: “We don’t need a priest, a human and also sinner, to tell us our sins are forgiven… Where is the faith? If we believe the Word then why do we need a human confirmation, what makes his speech any more powerful then God himself?” She uses 1 John 1:9 to support her case. I obviously used John 20:23 to support the Catholic view. The thing that is really getting me is that John seems to be either contradicting himself or Jesus.

I appreciate all answers!

Richard Feynman

Hi Richard,
I am aware of people who think it is just fine to confess all sins directly to God; somehow, this most common delusion that keeps many away from confession, spared me. One day a youngster confronted me with this question: “May we confess our sins directly to God instead of going through the priest?” and I was able to respond immediately only because God enabled me to say this: “God already knows all what we ever did and there is hardly any effort or humbling in confessing directly to God. But admitting our wrong doings to a fellow human is really difficult and requires real humbling and contriteness. Moreover, very few are able to hear God’s voice and that is why He has anointed priests for this purpose from whom we may hear clearly and also receive God’s own absolution and counsel”.

regards
Pitcharan

 

[Gorgias]

So, if Im sincere in my request and I ask God for forgiveness for sins Ive committed, he will NOT grant it JUST because I did not go thru a priest?

I have a hard time believing that.

Mikekle,

It’s hard to believe because, in the way you’ve set it up, you’ve turned it into a question of whether God’s forgiveness knows any bounds. Any Christian would tell you that God’s mercy is, of course, boundless! But, the question here isn’t whether, but rather, in what way God forgives.

If it were true that God wants us simply to go to Him in prayer, then we’d find it somewhere – either in the Bible or in Church teaching – wouldn’t we? Here’s the problem, though: in any of the passages (in this thread or elsewhere) that Christians point to God’s forgiveness, specifically because those passages don’t mention sacramental reconciliation, the passage isn’t answering the question “How?” but only “Does God forgive?”

In the OT and the NT both, the means of forgiveness from God is always through the actions of one of His priests: animal sacrifice under the Mosaic covenant and sacramental reconciliation under Jesus’ New Covenant.

Now… is it the case that a direct prayer to God is never efficacious in the forgiveness of sins? No, I don’t think so. After all, we say that a deathbed repentance can allow a person to attain to heaven, don’t we? (For example, we say that we cannot assert authoritatively that people who commit suicide go to hell because, after all, as they lay dying, they might have repented of their sin.) In these cases, we’re not saying “only if a priest is nearby to hear their confession,” because, naturally, those cases are extremely rare.

What’s the difference, though, between the “deathbed” situation and yours, that explains why their prayer to God might bring forgiveness? Well… for the person on their deathbed, access to sacramental confession is impossible; for you, it isn’t. Therefore, you’re held to the higher standard: since you’re able to go to confession, your method of obtaining absolution is through the sacrament.

Hope this helps…

G.

 

[hu324b]

When you confess with another person present - it keeps you honest - it gives you humilitiy for your sins - true sorrow - confession just has more meaning when someone is there to witness your confession to God.The priest acting in place of Christ offers you absolution and then there is nothing greater than being able to say an act of contrition which is usually an emotion moment if your confession is true.

If we are to go by the early Church than confessions should be said infront of the entire assembly - read the Acts of the Apostles.

I will point out it is a major step in AA and a persons recovery is completely dependent on how honest they have been - if you fake it you will fail - and another person must be present when doing this confession - it is required simply because you can’t fake it when someone is present.I’ve been told this by friends who are in AA. They also say that many seek out a Catholic Priest for this step because of the vow the Catholic Priests make not to reveal sins confessed.Sounds like a good idea to me. Before anyone gets angry and says a priest should not do this - its not a confession as in the Sacrament of the church but as a straight confession to another human being. You have to be Catholic to recieve the graces offered by the Church - and a Priest can offer absolution to whom ever he pleases - i don’t think Jesus would be angry over that - some Catholics might be though.

 

[Richard_Feynman]

When you confess with another person present - it keeps you honest - it gives you humilitiy for your sins - true sorrow - confession just has more meaning when someone is there to witness your confession to God.The priest acting in place of Christ offers you absolution and then there is nothing greater than being able to say an act of contrition which is usually an emotion moment if your confession is true.

If we are to go by the early Church than confessions should be said infront of the entire assembly - read the Acts of the Apostles.

I will point out it is a major step in AA and a persons recovery is completely dependent on how honest they have been - if you fake it you will fail - and another person must be present when doing this confession - it is required simply because you can’t fake it when someone is present.I’ve been told this by friends who are in AA. They also say that many seek out a Catholic Priest for this step because of the vow the Catholic Priests make not to reveal sins confessed.Sounds like a good idea to me. Before anyone gets angry and says a priest should not do this - its not a confession as in the Sacrament of the church but as a straight confession to another human being. You have to be Catholic to recieve the graces offered by the Church - and a Priest can offer absolution to whom ever he pleases - i don’t think Jesus would be angry over that - some Catholics might be though.

Very nice analogy! I would’ve literally never known that. Yes, I do notice that it is MUCH easier to ask forgiveness from God than a human… Just as learning something new from a fellow human is more humbling (and helpful) IME than learning something new from God…

Richard Feynman

 

[zz912]

In the Old Testament, especially, we confessed directly to God. Christ changed that in the New Testament.

That’s not correct. Even in the OT, the Israelites were required to confess their sins to a priest.

 

[JonNC]

Thank you everyone! I will use al this and pray for her!

I really appreciate all the replies! All this totally changed my view of confession!

Richard Feynman

Richard,
I don’t know if your friend’s mind is open to it, but private confession is not only a Catholic practice. From the confessions of the original “protestants”, that being Lutherans:

Part III, Article VII. Of the Keys.

1] The keys are an office and power given by Christ to the Church for binding and loosing sin, not only the gross and well-known sins, but also the subtle, hidden, which are known only to God, as it is written in Ps. 19:13: Who can understand his errors? And in Rom. 7:25 St. Paul himself complains that with the flesh he serves the law of sin. 2] For it is not in our power, but belongs to God alone, to judge which, how great, and how many the sins are, as it is written in Ps. 143:2: Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified. 3] And Paul says, 1 Cor. 4:4: For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified.

Part III, Article VIII. Of Confession.

1] Since Absolution or the Power of the Keys is also an aid and consolation against sin and a bad conscience, ordained by Christ [Himself] in the Gospel, Confession or Absolution ought by no means to be abolished in the Church, especially on account of [tender and] timid consciences and on account of the untrained [and capricious] young people, in order that they may be examined, and instructed in the Christian doctrine.

2] But the enumeration of sins ought to be free to every one, as to what he wishes to enumerate or not to enumerate. For as long as we are in the flesh, we shall not lie when we say: “I am a poor man *, full of sin.” Rom. 7:23: I see another law in my members, etc. For since private absolution originates in the Office of the Keys, it should not be despised [neglected], but greatly and highly esteemed [of the greatest worth], as [also] all other offices of the Christian Church.
*

It seems to me there is contradiction, that not only can (and should) we ask forgiveness (see the Lord’s Prayer/Our Father), but also we should seek out our pastor/priest to confession our sins and receive Holy Absolution. Hearing words of absolution from a pastor/confessor brings great certainty of forgiveness, as it was Christ Himself who authorized the Church through its priests to grant absolution.

Jon

 

[Gorgias]

ClearWater:

In the Old Testament, especially, we confessed directly to God. Christ changed that in the New Testament.

That’s not correct. Even in the OT, the Israelites were required to confess their sins to a priest.

Well… you’re right, in that Jews were required to make an atoning sacrifice. But, I don’t believe that they were required to literally “confess their sins”; by virtue of the fact that they approached the priest and made the sacrifice, they were implicitly confessing their sinfulness, but not their literal sins.

However, your point is well taken: in the OT, the people of God had their sins forgiven through the actions of a priest of God.

 

[Sirach2]

Well… you’re right, in that Jews were required to make an atoning sacrifice. But, I don’t believe that they were required to literally “confess their sins”; by virtue of the fact that they approached the priest and made the sacrifice, they were implicitly confessing their sinfulness, but not their literal sins.

However, your point is well taken: in the OT, the people of God had their sins forgiven through the actions of a priest of God.

I’m not sure I agree with you, Gorgias. In Chapter 4 of Leviticus, those who had committed a sin, willfully, or inadvertently, had to bring a sacrificial victim to the priest. That much is clear. The penitent then laid his hand on the head of the animal, and the priest made atonement for him. Not clear. What was the purpose of laying his hands on the sacrificial victim’s head? Was it not symbolic of the transference of his sin to the victim? Did he confess, or not confess his sins in front of the priest?

I believe, in light of the instructions from God regarding the “scapegoat” in Lev. 16:21, It was said that the sins of the entire community shall be “confessed” as they laid hands on the head of the scapegoat, and then the priest led the animal into the desert - a symbol of their sins being remembered no more. If it was simply a silent confession in the heart, and not a verbal confession, then why use the priest as the mediator? They could have just as easily, as some will argue today, confess in their heart to God and it would have been forgiven. No, God required confession to the priest.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not sure I agree with you, Gorgias. In Chapter 4 of Leviticus, those who had committed a sin, willfully, or inadvertently, had to bring a sacrificial victim to the priest. That much is clear. The penitent then laid his hand on the head of the animal, and the priest made atonement for him. Not clear. What was the purpose of laying his hands on the sacrificial victim’s head?

Scholars suggest that, by laying one hand on the animal’s head, the person was identifying that the sacrifice to be made of the animal was on his behalf. Not a transference of sins, but just a sign that “this sacrifice is from me.”

Did he confess, or not confess his sins in front of the priest?

No; the sacrifice did not require verbal confession of sin.

I believe, in light of the instructions from God regarding the “scapegoat” in Lev. 16:21, It was said that the sins of the entire community shall be “confessed” as they laid hands on the head of the scapegoat, and then the priest led the animal into the desert - a symbol of their sins being remembered no more. If it was simply a silent confession in the heart, and not a verbal confession, then why use the priest as the mediator? They could have just as easily, as some will argue today, confess in their heart to God and it would have been forgiven. No, God required confession to the priest.

No; scholars assert that this didn’t effect individual atonement, but rather, atonement for the community at large. Here, the priest was acting on behalf of the community. No individual confession involved.

I think we can demonstrate that this is the case, based on the development of the sacrament of Reconciliation in the early Church. If your assertions are true, and individual (and frequent) confession were part of the Jewish tradition, then we’d expect that this would have transferred to the early Christian communities. However, it did not. Early Christian communities asserted that there was only the possibility of one post-baptismal confession and absolution; some suggested that apostasy was unforgivable altogether (e.g., the experience of the ‘lapsi’). The practice of reconciliation developed significantly over time; for example, penitents were required to stand among the congregation and publicly confess their sins! While the notion of ‘forgiveness’ remained part of the tradition of the church, the discipline of the sacrament underwent significant development. So no, it doesn’t make sense to presume that OT atonement included spoken confession of individual sins.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know I believe its more in line with today. “Over time, the forms in which the sacrament has been administered have changed.” I think this article by CAF is vague but indeed accurate.

catholic.com/tracts/confession

Origen

“[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).

The existing works of Origen on Leviticus are significant also Numbers and Exodus.

For example the above paragraph on Leviticus includes in context…

“(…) listen now to how many are the remissions of sins in the Gospels.
There is a first one when we are baptized for the remission of sins (1) . A second remission occurs in the sufferings of martyrdom; the third one is that which comes by the alms. In fact our Saviour says: rather give what you have, and everything will be right for you (2) . A fourth remission of sins happens when we ourselves remit the sins of our brothers; in fact just our Saviour and Lord says: For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses (3) ; as he taught us to say in our prayers: And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors (4) .
A fifth remission of sins is when we convert a sinner from his stray path. In fact the divine Scripture says so: remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins (5) . A sixth remission occurs by the over-pouring of charity, as the Lord himself says: Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven - for she loved much (6) , and the Apostle says: charity covers a multitude of sins (7) . There is still a seventh remission of sins - hard and toilsome - that through repentance, when the sinner covers with tears his bed (8) and his tears are his bread day and night (9) , and when he is not ashamed of revealing his sin to a priest of the Lord, and of seeking the medicine accordingly to the word of He who affirms: Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord” and you forgave the guilt of my sin” Faith of the Early Church Fathers Vol-1 pg 207

“Here the rule which the law enjoins: “If someone of the after mentioned should have sinned” it says, “he shall confess the sin which he sinned” There is something wonderful hidden in this, whereby confession of sins is commanded. For they are to be confessed, whatever kind they be; and all that we do must be bought forward in public. Whatever we have done in secret, whatever we have committed by word or in our thoughts …all must be made public, all must be bought forward by him who is both the accuser of the sin and the investigator there of. For the one who incites us to sin is the one who will accuse us when we have sinned. If, therefor. we anticipate him in life and become the accusers of ourselves, we will escape the malice of the devil, our enemy and accuser. You see then the confession of sin merits the remission of sin. For is we proceed the devil in making our accusation, he will not be able to accuse us. If we become our own accusers, it profits us until salvation. But if we wait until the devil has accused us, the accusation delivers us to punishment” Leviticus 3, 4

“In regard to grave crimes a place for repentance is conceded only once. Those, however, which are common and into which we frequently fall. always admit repentance, and are forgiven without cease” Leviticus 15, 2

Homily 8, 3 covers Baptism for the remission of sin with infants.

Numbers Hom. 24, 1 “So long as there was sin, it is necessarily required that there be sacrificial victims for sins. The animals served for the purification of the people”

 

[Sirach2]

Scholars suggest that, …

May I please have a more authoritative source other than “Scholars suggest that”…

I think we can demonstrate that this is the case, based on the development of the sacrament of Reconciliation in the early Church. If your assertions are true, and individual (and frequent) confession were part of the Jewish tradition, then we’d expect that this would have transferred to the early Christian communities. However, it did not.

What the early new Christians practiced does not justify that this was actual past practice with the ancient Israelites. The prescriptions of the Torah were no longer followed, even as God corrected St. Peter in the important three-fold vision of Acts 10.

Do you have a source that verifies the suggestions of your scholars? One from the Church Fathers, perhaps? I, too, have studied writings from Jewish tradition who aver that “As you lay your hands on the offering identifying yourself with it, you confess your particular sin.”

Why, then, would the individual who sinned need to go to a priest? He could just as easily slaughter his own sacrifice and expect that his sins would be forgiven by God. No. God ordained that the remittance of sins was always to be done through the ministry of the priest.

 

[Sirach2]

Gorgias,
While you would not recognize my book source that states confession of sins was necessary, I noted that this was the case in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The ceremony of the imposition of hands was usually preceded by a confession of sins which, according to Rabbinic tradition, was** verbal** (cf. Otho, “Lex rabbin.”, 552).

See also Numbers 5:5-8:
"This, too, was a message the Lord gave to Moses for the sons of Israel, If man or woman commits any of those wrongs mankind is prone to commit, and incurs guilt by neglecting the Lord’s commandment, confession must be made of it, and the sum paid back, with a fifth part added besides, to the wronged party.

 

[mikekle]

Im curious why they thought sacrifice of animals would help them out? If an animal truly does not have a soul, then how does killing it benefit God in anyway?

Im also curious what would happen today if someone offered a sacrifice to God using an animal (not that I would ever do this, because I would never kill an animal), just wondering if doing it today would have any impact either way, if it did in the past, I would have to assume it would still work…right?

 

[MPat]

Im curious why they thought sacrifice of animals would help them out? If an animal truly does not have a soul, then how does killing it benefit God in anyway?

Animals do have souls (just not rational souls). And their sacrifices did not give “benefits” to God. There are enough places in Bible where God ridicules the idea that He needed sacrifices or gained some “benefit” from them. Humans gained the “benefit”, not God.

In a sense, it might be a bit similar to trying to find a “benefit” of kisses or hugs. Especially in case when husband kisses a picture of his wife…

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias,
While you would not recognize my book source that states confession of sins was necessary,

Try me.

I noted that this was the case in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Perhaps we’re saying the same thing, but thinking that the other is saying something else entirely. Are you claiming that the Jewish person bringing a sacrifice for atonement was required to confess particular sins, or simply that he was required to confess his sinfulness?

Given that the Christian sacrament of reconciliation requires the former, I’m claiming that confession of one’s sins was not part of the Jewish ritual of atonement through sacrifice. Are you only claiming the latter – that the person bringing the sacrifice simply had to say, “hey, I’m a sinner!” …?

 

[Gorgias]

Im curious why they thought sacrifice of animals would help them out?

They did not have a cash-based economy in the way that we do today. Livestock and crops were the ‘currency’ of many. When God says, “make a sacrifice”, He’s asking them to sacrifice from their resources, giving back to Him from the blessings that He has given them. There’s a profound theological assertion being made here: sin hurts us; it takes from us the blessings with which God has blessed us. If we are not literally financially hurt by our sin, then the requirement to make a sacrifice demonstrates to us in a literal way that sin has negative consequences.

Im also curious what would happen today if someone offered a sacrifice to God using an animal (not that I would ever do this, because I would never kill an animal), just wondering if doing it today would have any impact either way, if it did in the past, I would have to assume it would still work…right?

No, it would not. The Mosaic Covenant was for the Jewish people. We, as Gentiles, are part of Jesus’ New Covenant. In Hebrews 9, we are taught that:

"[W]hen Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, … he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer’s ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God." (Hebrews 9:11-14)

In other words, no: you cannot sacrifice an animal in order to atone from your sins. (After all, there’s not a temple of the Mosaic covenant for you to go to, even if you were Jewish and were able to make appeal to the old covenant… )

 

[po18guy]

In Nehemiah 9:2, we see the OT public confession of sins, just as we see with John the Baptist.

In the NT, each and every time that Jesus forgave sins (without exception), He told the sinner aloud so they could hear that their sins were forgiven. See Matthew 9:2, Mark 2:5, Luke 5:20, 7:48.

OP: Ask your friend how many times she has heard Jesus tell her aloud that her sins are forgiven.

If she has not heard those words of absolution she is either assuming, or worse, presuming that her sins are actually forgiven.

Given this fact, she sholuld study the doctrine of purgatory with great interest.

 

[Sirach2]

Try me.

I believe I asked you for a source for what you claim scholars suggest. You first.

Are you claiming that the Jewish person bringing a sacrifice for atonement was required to confess particular sins, or simply that he was required to confess his sinfulness?

Indeed, I am. Who would know better how it was done than the Jews themselves. There can be no doubt about what “I have done thus and so” means.

Quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia]

SEMIKAH ("laying on [of hands on the sacrificial victim] ")

In Sacrifices.

A ceremony obligatory on one who offered an animal sacrifice. The regulations governing its observance were as follows: The owner of the sacrificial victim (Sifra, Wayiḳra, v. [ed. Weiss, 6d-7a]) was required to lay both his hands with all his might between the horns of the animal just before it was killed (Maimonides, “Yad,” Ma’ase ha-Ḳorbanot, iii. 13). The act of imposition, which took place in the court of the Temple where the victim was slain (Men. 93a, b; Zeb. 32b-33a; Maimonides, l.c. iii. 11-12), was to be performed with bare hands, and there might be nothing between them and the head of the animal (Maimonides, l.c. iii. 13; Men. 93b). During this ceremony the sacrificer, in case he brought a sin-offering or an offering of atonement, confessed his sins, saying: “I have done thus and so, but have repented; may this sacrifice bring me forgiveness and be an atonement for me” (Yoma 35b; Maimonides, l.c. iii. 14). In the case of a thank-offering or a meal-offering at which sins were not confessed, the sacrificer recited hymns and prayers of thanksgiving during the act (Maimonides, ib.).

 

[Stilldreamn]

Given this fact, she sholuld study the doctrine of purgatory with great interest.

For my part, should I find myself in purgatory some day I would be surprised but would be thanking God for His mercy in placing me there - certainly my sins would have been sufficient to send me elsewhere!

I struggle with the idea of purgatory, but tend to think of it somewhat like sitting in the dentist’s chair - teeth don’t clean themselves, and we’re much the better for it when it’s done.

 

[po18guy]

For my part, should I find myself in purgatory some day I would be surprised but would be thanking God for His mercy in placing me there - certainly my sins would have been sufficient to send me elsewhere!

I struggle with the idea of purgatory, but tend to think of it somewhat like sitting in the dentist’s chair - teeth don’t clean themselves, and we’re much the better for it when it’s done.

Once we are past the false assertion of purgatory being the “third place”, it is easier to grasp.

I keep going back to Paul’s writing in 1 Corinthians 3:10-17. Just how is that, on the terrible day of the Lord, when all creation is in upheaval, and we are called from this life into the Lord’s presence, (no longer on earth but our work is being examined by judged by God), and if that work burns up, we will suffer loss, but we ourselves are still saved - yet as though passing through fire?

I believe that this is explained by Paul’s reference to us being the temple of God, with His Spirit dwelling in us. If we recall from scripture (2 Maccabees 8), the temple in Jerusalem suffered loss, being defiled by sinful men. Once liberated from sin, it was purified and the fire of sacrifice were placed within it. Once that fire was in the temple and the sacrifice occurred, it was found acceptable to God - the first Hanukkah. Note in 2 Maccabees 10:7, that the people carried branches and palms in honor of the Lord Who gave them success in cleansing His place. What can this be except a foreshadowing of Palm Sunday, when the Lord in the flesh would return to the temple and sanctify it with His presence? The purgation of judgment day is our personal Hanukkah, so to speak.

No one who denies purgatory has yet been able to offer a coherent explanation of just what this process is that Paul speaks of, other than what we know as purgatory. The temple was defiled by sin, then purged and cleansed with the fire of sacrifice as a re-dedication to the Lord. God, Who accepted this practice for His temple, also accepts it as purification for our bodies, which are the temple in which His Spirit lives (1 Cor 3:17).