Protestants, can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ufamtobie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
With reference to: DOCTRINE by Jay12

I have been told by many Protestants that they do not believe in “doctrine.” They say they only believe in “what Jesus said”.

This is utter nonsense. People of all faiths believe in doctrine, for doctrine is simply a system of beliefs.

When Jesus said, “do this in remembrance of me,” he was referring to communion, of course. We all agree on that. However, many Protestants teach that this is just a symbolic taking of Jesus’ flesh and blood, whereas Catholics believe in transubstantiation. Both ideas are doctrine. It necessarily involves some interpretation of Scripture.

The concept of the Trinity is a doctrine, and most Christians believe this one.

The concept of OSAS is a doctrine.

Any time a person reads words, there is some interpretation involved. We cannot escape it. For example, I say to my sons “put your soccer shirts on the table, so I can wash them,” and later I find one soccer shirt on the kitchen table and one on the coffee table. Each person heard the same words, but only one of my sons put the shirt where I actually wanted it, i.e. on the kitchen table. Moreover, the interpretation gets even more difficult when you cross cultural/language barriers. For example, in Russian, you cannot say “Let’s have some fun.” You can have “Let’s have a good time,” but it is not exactly the same.

To continue to mince words evidences the following:
  1. Lack of intellectual honesty. Every person has doubts about their faith. To say otherwise shows dishonesty. Have you never read a miracle in the Bible and said “Did that really happen that way.” Have you never doubted any teaching of your Church? When I was a Baptist, I doubted OSAS, but I will tell you that no one would entertain the doubt with me for even a moment. All I got in reply were the same standard, tired old phrases that made we want to vomit, because it was clear to me that the person I was talking to didn’t care to question it.
  2. General ignorance of the English language itself and the fact that words have layers of meaning. Words have denotative meanings and connotative meanings. This is one of the most difficult facets of language for people who learn a second language to understand. For example, take the words “famous” and “notrious.” I have seen students (I used to each at the college level) use these two words interchangeably. Are they, however, exactly synonymous? No. One has a negative connotation, i.e. “notorious.”
  3. Ignorance of logical reasoning and effective rhetoric (in its postive sense). For example, a person tells me “I believe that abortion is wrong because the unborn child is a living being with just as many rights as his mother,” but I say back to him, “Oh yeah, well you’re an idiot.” Clearly, the first person has a logical reason for believing what he believes. I may not agree with him, but his argument is logical and well-formed, rhetorically speaking. I can respect its thoughtfulness.
When it comes to faith, we are all looking at the faith’s doctrine, as a whole, and saying to ourselves, this one seems most correct to me, most reasonable to me. I have met sincere and lukewarm Protestants and Catholics. This should not surprise us, as we are all sinners, and I suspect that we all vascillate to some degree between perfect sincerity and perfect depravity.

Blessings,

Lisa
If I interpret the last supper correctly, and I know I do, then it is impossible for me to believe that Jesus cut bits of flesh from his body and tap his veins to give the word REAL its real meaning.

We open a nasty can of worms here. If real does not mean real, did Jesus really die on the cross? Was he really here on earth to begin with? Does he really mean we will live with him some day? Since he did not cut and tap himself during this ceremony, the word real is out and must be replaced with symbolic. That’s just the way it is, folks.
 
Individual interpretation is what I see here. 🤷 It is clearly pennance right in front of you. If this is so clearly outlined in this Scripture passage, why do Protestants STILL refuse to acknowledge this? Go figure…
Are you forbidden to interpret scripture on your own? According to your catechism, you may understand and interpret through the power of the Holy Spirit.

91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them53 and guides them into all truth.54

Therefore, I don’t understand your contention.
 
In general, Catholics do interpret anything to do with the apostles as applying in some way to priests and bishops.

I’m trying to remember if the word “successor” or anything like it appears in the NT regarding Christians. Felix’s “successor”, Porcius Festus (and how’d you like to grow up with a name like that?) shows up, and then in Hebrews it says Melchizedek is a priest like Christ, without interruption or “successor.” Other than that, I can’t think of anything. Can you?

Does Paul ever refer to Titus or Timothy as a successor? “Son in the faith,” yes, but I don’t think Catholics interpret that phrase as specifically referring to their concept of succession of bishops. I’m drawing a blank here.
The words successor/succession do not appear in the bible. I use the KJV.
 
First, David did not confess to Nathan, Nathan accused him. Second Nathan was a prophet not a priest. Did all prophets have the authority to forgive sin? Third, there is no indication that Psalm 32 deals with the sin in 2 Samuel 12. David makes no reference to confessing to anyone but God. Fourth, Did David’s forgiveness need Nathan? What for the multitudes in the Old Testament who didn’t have a prophet to tell them of forgiveness.
Instead of David, who did Abraham confess to when he sinned?

Why do we need someone to confess through? There is put the one mediator, Jesus. Why do we need someone to tell us we are forgiven when we know that God does forgive us? It is not a presumption because we are told He does in Scripture.
Does your bible not contain 2 Samuel 12:13 - 'Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the LORD’ '? This occurs AFTER Nathan accuses him, mind you, so it cannot possibly be anything other than a formal verbal confession of his sin by David to Nathan - not simply to God.

If, as Nathan indicated, he already knew David’s sin, why the need for formal verbal confession to Nathan at all, unless THAT was the means through which David confessed to God? Similarly if David had no need of Nathan to tell him that he was forgiven, why did Nathan bother to do so? Why waste his breath telling David something that was so self-evident?

As for Psalm 32 - sure it speaks of confession to God, it certainly does NOT speak of confessing to God in private prayer to the exclusion of confessing to priest or prophet. It is vague enough to support either possibility, and offers no evidence that confession to priest or other authority was unnecessary.

Clearly the episode in Samuel shows how David DID confess to God in practice - that is, through His representative (priest or prophet).

Moving on to Abraham - what, you think there were no priests around in his day? Who on earth was this Melchizedek fellow then? I suppose you think he was the only priest of God in existence in the whole world in Abraham’s day? Highly doubtful. So there’s certainly no indication that Abraham couldn’t or didn’t confess to a priest.

In short, the people of Israel, both before and after the time of Moses, ALWAYS had authority figures instituted by God to whom they could and did confess their sins - Aaronic priests and prophets and and whatnot.

And Leviticus tells us how THEY atoned for sin ordinarily - at least after the time of Moses (and I’m sure God didn’t invent this practice from scratch for them either).

They brought an animal sacrifice to the priest, confessed their sin to him while laying a hand on the head of the beast, and the priest slaughtered it and offered it to God on behalf of the sinner.

Note there’s no ritual prescribed for PRIVATE sin-offering without a priest - there’s no indication that it was good enough for them to just privately confess and slaughter their own animal and offer it to God.
 
Are you forbidden to interpret scripture on your own? According to your catechism, you may understand and interpret through the power of the Holy Spirit.

91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them53 and guides them into all truth.54

Therefore, I don’t understand your contention.
**No, the Apostles who have handed down to the Roman Catholic church to give you YOUR bible, because without the Catholic church, you wouldn’t even have one…oh, but you’ll dispute this one, even if it has historical evidence as well…🤷 **
 
I don’t know anything aboutthis, but this still does not seem problematic to me. Jesus comes to Earth through the vessel, the Holy Mother. Either way, Satan will be crushed, and the two are involved.

Blessings,

Lisa
We are all involved in crushing satan in that sense. (see Romans 16:20 )

However, Genesis 3:15 is singular, masculine and is referring to Christ.

The word “he” in Gen 3:15 refers to Jesus, not Mary. Changing “he” to “she” makes a difference.

Look at these examples:

She gave birth to a son. He was named Jesus.
She gave birth to a son. She was named Jesus.

Who was named Jesus? Was she named Jesus or was he named Jesus.

Here’s another example:
The son ate lunch with his mother. She paid the check.

Does this sentence make clear to the reader that the son is the one who paid the check?

Changing “he” to “she” changed the meaning.
 
One of the texts that were improved was Genesis 3:15

The Douay Rheims Bible which was translated from Jerome’s Vulgate says “she (Mary) shall crush” satan’s head. The original text say “he (Jesus) shall crush” satan’s head.

The RC admits the original text says “he”, not “she”.

NEW ADVENT Catholic Encyclopedia:
(2) The second point of difference between the Hebrew text and our version concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the serpent: our version agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading “she” (ipsa) which refers to the woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu’ (autos, ipse) which refers to the seed (Jesus)…

The RC explains that by using “she” the passage makes clear Jesus is the one who really crushes satan’s head. :rolleyes:

“According to our version, … the woman herself will win the victory; …The reading “she” (ipsa) is neither an intentional corruption of the original text, nor is it an accidental error; it is rather an explanatory version …”

The DR Bible states “he/she” makes no difference,
but this 1st pope who set out to correct errors like this obviously recognized the importane, and his successor found it important enough to see the work to completion.

Genesis 3:15 has been corrected to read “he” as was written in the original Hebrew.
I would recommend reading this article from the Catholic News Service: Immaculate Conception: Church marks anniversary of difficult dogma (2004).
 
We are all involved in crushing satan in that sense. (see Romans 16:20 )

However, Genesis 3:15 is singular, masculine and is referring to Christ.

The word “he” in Gen 3:15 refers to Jesus, not Mary. Changing “he” to “she” makes a difference.

Look at these examples:

She gave birth to a son. He was named Jesus.
She gave birth to a son. She was named Jesus.

Who was named Jesus? Was she named Jesus or was he named Jesus.

Here’s another example:
The son ate lunch with his mother. She paid the check.

Does this sentence make clear to the reader that the son is the one who paid the check?

Changing “he” to “she” changed the meaning.
Ilbarosa was saying, Satan will be crushed and the two “Mary and Jesus” are involved. She will bring forth the one One who crush Satan. End of story.
 
I am stunned Peter!

You said that I confused you! I asked for clarification because I was confused by your statement and all you can come up with is “whatever”?

I have heard this expression before - from yuppie teenage girls!

😃
:rotfl:
 
Not to those who reject God. The Bible says Jesus appeared in his crucified body - to the disciples to prove he had risen in the flesh. JW’s say he didn’t because flesh and blood cannot walk thru walls and Jesus appeared in a locked room.
.
.
.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

1Cr 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
Oh man, let’s recap.

You1: The Tritnity is Plain from the Bible
Me1: Trinity not Plain from the Bible or else there will be no anti-Trinitarian heresies.

You2: Plain only to those who are redeemed or something like that.
Me2: If you start making exceptions like “only to those who are redeemed” then it is no longer plain. Plain means plain so has to be plain to ALL.

You3: Some books are not plain to all like medical and mechanical books which are only plain to doctors andmechanics.
Me3: But the Bible is not a specialist book but a book for All because Christ died for All so must be plain to All.

My point here is if the medical and mechanical books are written for doctors and mechanics such that doctors and mechanics understand them plainly. the Bible was written for All becuase this is supposed to be everyones means of coming to learn about salvation since Christ died for all.

You4: Cite passages showing that Bible is plain only to those who are redeemed again.
Me4: Ergo. You have just proven my point from Me1. Get it? By going back to this passages you have just shown that the Bible is not plain. You are now saying that the Bible is meant only for a few.

ALL YOU ARE DOING WITH THIS POST IS ADDING MORE PASSAGES THAT KEEP SUPPORTING MY POINT THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT PLAIN.

That is the point we are arguing about, where or not the Bible is plain. You have not given any rational/logical refutation of my point. The question is not scriptural. It is a logical question because your proposition was an extra-bibilical statement. On the contrary, you have supplied scriptural passages that supported my point.

You were almost on the mark when you replied with the medical and mechanical books.
So you did not get my comment. You said that those who believe the Apostles Creed are Christians. There are some evangelicals who do not go by the Apostles Creed. **You are in effect saying these people are Christians in name only. And to which I replied that I think they will be offended at being told they are Christians in name only.🙂 **

So now we have protestants saying other protestants are not Christians. Interesting.
 
Are you forbidden to interpret scripture on your own? According to your catechism, you may understand and interpret through the power of the Holy Spirit.

91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them53 and guides them into all truth.54

Therefore, I don’t understand your contention.
We are not forbidden to interpret scripture on our own because there are different levels to Scriptural interpretation. It is true that in a certain sense we are guided by the Holy Spirit when we read the Bible. The Bible can speak to us individually and as a Church.

The problem arises when you start reading some parts of the Bible and come up with the conclusion that this is what it means period, when other parts of the Bible outright refute it. Case in point is Faith Alone.

No single person can hope to plumb the depths of Scripture. The issues that you come up with now, the Church’s fathers, doctors and saints have already grappled with hundreds of years ago. Some of these Church Fathers are second generation apostles.

That is why we have the Church. That is why we have the deposit of faith to bounce back our own interpretation against.

But submitting to the wisdom of the Church requires much humility. Christ said, learn from me for I am humble of heart.
 
You3: Some books are not plain to all like medical and mechanical books which are only plain to doctors and mechanics.
Me3: But the Bible is not a specialist book but a book for All because Christ died for All so must be plain to All.

The Bible is a book for believers. Therefore it is plain to believers.
1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
benedictus2;4544717:
My point here is if the medical and mechanical books are written for doctors and mechanics such that doctors and mechanics understand them plainly.
The Holy Scriptures were written for believers such that believers can understand them plainly:
John 20:31 But these have been recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and so that through believing you may have life in his name.
That is the point we are arguing about, where or not the Bible is plain. You have not given any rational/logical refutation of my point. The question is not scriptural. It is a logical question because your proposition was an extra-bibilical statement.
On the contrary, you have supplied scriptural passages that supported my point.

The question and answer are Biblical
But there is extra-biblical support for my position as well:
Chrysostom wrote: “All things are plain and simple in the Holy Scriptures; all things necessary are evident” (2 Thessalonians Homily 3)
So you did not get my comment. You said that those who believe the Apostles Creed are Christians. There are some evangelicals who do not go by the Apostles Creed. **You are in effect saying these people are Christians in name only. And to which I replied that I think they will be offended at being told they are Christians in name only.🙂 **
Please give me an example instead of vague accusations.
So now we have protestants saying other protestants are not Christians. Interesting.
If I claim to be an vegetarian, does that make me an vegetarian? Or is it what I believe and what I eat and don’t eat that make me a vegetarian?

If I say I am I a vegetarian but I eat meat, am I a vegetarian?

If I say I am a Jew, but talk and behave like a Buddhist, am I a Jew?
If I say I am a Christian, but talk and behave like a humanist, am I a Christian?

Not everyone who claims the title Christian, is a Christian.
 
The Bible is a book for believers. Therefore it is plain to believers.
Okay, fair enough. Scriptural references as I have said are not necessary and have no bearing on the question because the question is not scriptural.

And you are doing much better with this statement.

However, if the Bible is for believers and are PLAIN TO BELIEVERS, then how come BELIEVERS interpret it differently.

If it is PLAIN in its meaning, we would all come up with the same conclusion.

In the case of the Trinity, there would be no Trinitarian heresies. These PEOPLE ALL BELIEVED IN JESUS, IN GOD THE FATHER, IN THE HOLY SPIRIT WHICH ARE ALL IN THE BIBLE BUT CAME UP WITH DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS.

And that is just the Trinity.
Please give me an example instead of vague accusations.
I attended a non-denominational service to oblige a friend. Some believed in the apostles creed in its entirety, some didn’t believe in some parts like the communion of saints, some did not believe in the virgin birth.

All of them believed they are 100% Christian.
If I claim to be an vegetarian, does that make me an vegetarian? Or is it what I believe and what I eat and don’t eat that make me a vegetarian?

If I say I am I a vegetarian but I eat meat, am I a vegetarian?

If I say I am a Jew, but talk and behave like a Buddhist, am I a Jew?
If I say I am a Christian, but talk and behave like a humanist, am I a Christian?

Not everyone who claims the title Christian, is a Christian.
I do not disagree with your conclusion that some Christians are in name only. I just thought it interesting that protestants also consider other protestants non Christian. Just a side comment.
 
The question and answer are Biblical
.

NO IT IS NOT. The statement is “The Trinity is plain from the Bible” is only supportable by the Bible if the Bible itself had a an explicit statemetn on the Trinity.

The question is on the PLAINESS of this doctrine. And you will not find any verse or Chapter that PLAINLY speaks of the Trinity as my example of Trinitarian heresies proved.

For example, if the Bible is PLAIN, the hypostatic union will not have needed stating in response to Arianism, Dualism and Nestorianism.
 
Lisa, I don’t recall you responding to the statement about the Apostles quoting from the Septuagint.

That is inaccurate. There is no evidence the Apostles or Jesus quoted the Septuagint.

Do you have some info that suggests otherwise?
It is interesting to note what Jerome had to say about whether the Apostles used the Hebrew version of the Scriptures or the Septuagint. He has this to say with respect to this issue and the Septuagint of his day.
The work is certainly hazardous and it is exposed to the attacks of my calumniators, who maintain that it is through contempt of the Seventy that I have set to work to forge a new version to take the place of the old…But I was encouraged above all by the authoritative publications of the Evangelists and Apostles, in which we read much taken from the Old Testament which is not found in our manuscripts. For example, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my Son’‘: For he shall be called a Nazarene’: and ‘They shall look on him whom they pierced’: and ‘Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly’: and ‘Things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them that love him’, and many other passages which lack their proper context. Let us ask our opponents then where these things are written, and when they are unable to tell, let us produce them from the Hebrew.…I do not condemn, I do not censure the Seventy, but I am bold enough to prefer the Apostles to them all. It is the Apostle through whose mouth I hear the voice of Christ, and I read that in the classification of spiritual gifts they are placed before prophets while interpreters occupy almost the lowest place. Why are you tormented with jealousy? Why do you inflame the minds of the ignorant against me? Wherever in translation I seem to you to go wrong, ask the Hebrews, consult their teachers in different towns. The words which exist in their Scriptures concerning Christ your copies do not contain.The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words “He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water,” and in the words used on the cross itself, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” which is by interpretation “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” not, as it is given by the Septuagint, “My God, my God, look upon me, why hast thou forsaken me?” and many similar cases. I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the seventy translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs. Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew. And further, I give a challenge to my accuser. I have shown that many things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these exist in the Hebrew. Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from the Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end.
Apology Against Rufinus
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xii.ii.xxvi.html
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xii.ii.xxviii.html

It seems that Jerome, looking at the Hebrew and Septuagint texts of his day, felt that Jesus prefered the Hebrew to the Septuagint.
 
.

NO IT IS NOT. The statement is “The Trinity is plain from the Bible” is only supportable by the Bible if the Bible itself had a an explicit statemetn on the Trinity.

The question is on the PLAINESS of this doctrine. And you will not find any verse or Chapter that PLAINLY speaks of the Trinity as my example of Trinitarian heresies proved.

For example, if the Bible is PLAIN, the hypostatic union will not have needed stating in response to Arianism, Dualism and Nestorianism.
Augustine seemed to think that the Trinity was plainly taught in Scripture.
For we behold and see as it were in a divine spectacle exhibited to us, the notice of our God in Trinity, conveyed to us at the river Jordan. For when Jesus came and was baptized by John, the Lord by His servant (and this He did for an example of humility; for He showeth that in this same humility is righteousness fulfilled, when as John said to Him, “I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?” He answered, “Suffer it to be so now, that all righteousness may be fulfilled", when He was baptized then, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit came down upon Him in the form of a Dove: and then a Voice from on high followed, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”Here then we have the Trinity in a certain sort distinguished. The Father in the Voice,—the Son in the Man,—the Holy Spirit in the Dove. It was only needful just to mention this, for most obvious is it to see. For the notice of the Trinity is here conveyed to us plainly and without leaving room for doubt or hesitation.
Homilies on the Gospels #2
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vii.iv.html
 
Augustine seemed to think that the Trinity was plainly taught in Scripture.

Homilies on the Gospels #2
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vii.iv.html
The point is not Augustnie’s contention.

If you go back to my earlier post, I already said that if it is PLAIN then there would not be any TRINITARIAN HERESIES.

When something is plain all believers would agree on it.

Saying Augustine thought so does not address my above statement.
 
The point is not Augustnie’s contention.

If you go back to my earlier post, I already said that if it is PLAIN then there would not be any TRINITARIAN HERESIES.

When something is plain all believers would agree on it.

Saying Augustine thought so does not address my above statement.
Hilary tells us that the Scriptures are plain on the Trinity and that heresies arose because the Scriptures were distorted, not because they were not plain.
  1. For there have risen many who have given to the plain words of Holy Writ some arbitrary interpretation of their own, instead of its true and only sense, and this in defiance of the clear meaning of words. Heresy lies in the sense assigned, not in the word written; the guilt is that of the expositor, not of the text. Is not truth indestructible? When we hear the name Father, is not sonship involved in that Name? The Holy Ghost is mentioned by name; must He not exist? We can no more separate fatherhood from the Father or sonship from the Son than we can deny the existence in the Holy Ghost of that gift which we receive. Yet men of distorted mind plunge the whole matter in doubt and difficulty, fatuously reversing the clear meaning of words, and depriving the Father of His fatherhood because they wish to strip the Son of His sonship.
On the Trinity, Book 2
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.ii.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top