Protestants, can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?

[Ginger2]

The reason I am asking is because I promised ufamtobie I would consider his statement about succession - which I have.

 

[LilyM]

At one time it seemed everyone believed the NT was first written in Aramaic. But in recent times that is being disputed. If we go from the point of Greek being the original language, it will slow me down considerably because I will have to study on that. I am online this forum while I am working and don’t have alot of time for researching these days. (I am self employed so I am not cheating anyone. However, the more time I spend on this the less money I make )

There are some that say the original Aramaic was preserved. Not the original documents, but copies made in Aramaic. It shines light on some of the tougher verses and even makes a case for Mary’s genealogy when read in Aramaic. Unfortunately, I don’t read Aramaic so I can’t draw any real conclusion to the validity of the claim.

The NT was written in Aramaic? Seriously? You REALLY imagine Paul was writing to all those (frequently Gentile and therefore having no reason to know Aramaic) Greeks that he converted in Aramaic?

And you really think every single one of the four Gospels was in Aramaic? The Gospels which were written up to half a century after Christ’s death when Christianity had spread well beyond Israel and the majority of converts were probably no longer Jews?

 

[LilyM]

The Scriptures don’t say exactly, but the most reasonable answer would seem to be the eleven original Apostles, excluding Judas, plus Paul – although an alternative theory would say Matthias (cf. Acts 1:26).

Tell me how and more importantly WHY Matthias was chosen - and WHY Peter would quote scripture saying ‘let another take his (meaning Judas’s) OFFICE’ if the Apostolate wasn’t

a) an actual office that could be passed on from one to another rather than a personal attribute that died with its possessor and

b) the Apostles didn’t and couldn’t have the authority to ordain successors to said office?

 

[Ginger2]

The NT was written in Aramaic? Seriously? You REALLY imagine Paul was writing to all those (frequently Gentile and therefore having no reason to know Aramaic) Greeks that he converted in Aramaic?

And you really think every single one of the four Gospels was in Aramaic? The Gospels which were written up to half a century after Christ’s death when Christianity had spread well beyond Israel and the majority of converts were probably no longer Jews?

LilyM,

First, I have already said I am trying to avoid silly disputes over the NT which both Catholics and Protestants agree upon.

Every time I discuss the NT Catholics disagree with what I say and since. Since it is not a vital issue (because we agree these books are inspired) I go along with what Catholics claim.

Second, Except maybe for Luke, I believe the Gospels were probably all written first in Aramaic and then translated to Greek. This is what I was taught as I child. (I was raised Catholic) and what I tend to believe. They were Jews and their first language was Aramaic.

Third, I have my Catholic Bible, St. Joseph Textbook Edition, which states Matthew was written in Aramaic and translated to Greek. Catholics have told me it was written in first in Greek, they have told me (in this forum) it was written first in Aramaic.

Fourth, I am trying to avoid dispute on the NT as my concern is with the Old Testament. So this is the last time I will discuss it. It’s obvious Catholic will disagree with me no matter what position I take - even when I cite what is written in my Catholic Bible. I’m beginning to think some argue just to argue.

 

[Ginger2]

**Ginger, I know you don’t believe in Succession, but the scriptures Indicate otherwise that the Apostles DO BELIEVE in SUCCESSION. Read it for yourself below

(ACTS 1: 23-26) At that they nominated two, Joseph (called Barsabas, also known as Justus) and Mathias. Then they prayed: “O Lord, you read the hearts of men. Make known to us which of these two you choose. FOR THE APOSTOLIC MINISTRY, replacing Judas, who deserted THE CAUSE and went the way he was destined to go.” They then drew lots between the two men. The choice fell to MATTHIAS, who was ADDED TO THE ELEVEN APOSTLES**

Ginger, now that you read (Acts1:23-26) which proves you Wrong. Do you still believe that, that the Apostles did not have successor?

Ginger, also, IF! the Apostles Knew that their Ministry would be over at their Death why would they Pray to Jesus to Elect another In Judas Place? …THere were gathered 120 brothers who prayed to the Lord for the Successor of Judas and it was Jesus Christ who Choose Mathias. Ginger, it was Jesus Christ who wants successors for His Apostolic Ministry.

in (Acts 1: 25)"FOR THIS APOSTOLIC MINISTRY"

Ufamtobie

It would seem the Apostles felt it was important that all twelve positions remained filled.

Two things here:
If your secretary quit, would you not fill that position? That is not a matter of succession as the RC describes, you would just be ensuring all offices are filled so work gets done.

Numbers were significant in Biblical times. It would also seem the Apostles believed it was God’s will to replace Judas and keep 12 head Apostles in place.

In Acts 1 Matthias wins the lottery to replace Judas.
This is the only place we ever hear of Matthias again.

However, In Acts 9 Jesus himself appoints a new Apostle, Saul/Paul is chosen by God.
Paul goes on to become possibly the greatest Apostle. Paul writes, what? about two thirds of the NT?

In keeping with the context of Scripture, men are always “knowing what God’s will is” and trying to force it to happen their way, instead of waiting on the Lord. It is a problem we all still struggle with even today.

I had never given this a thought in the past, bit it seems to me the Apostles chose Matthias, to be the 12th,

BUT God chose Paul.

If it was important to replace Judas so there would remain 12 head Apostles, why did God choose Paul if He had already chosen another thru the lottery?

God always chooses the unlikely to serve Him. Who was more unlikely than Saul?

 

[Peter_J]

Fourth, I am trying to avoid dispute on the NT as my concern is with the Old Testament. So this is the last time I will discuss it. It’s obvious Catholic will disagree with me no matter what position I take - even when I cite what is written in my Catholic Bible. I’m beginning to think some argue just to argue.

That’s a rather bizarre conclusion to make. Are you saying that any Catholic who disagrees with another Catholic must be arguing just to argue?

If so, then does the same logic apply to Protestants? Is every Protestant who disagrees with another Protestant “arguing just to argue”?

 

[Ginger2]

That’s a rather bizarre conclusion to make. Are you saying that any Catholic who disagrees with another Catholic must be arguing just to argue?

If so, then does the same logic apply to Protestants? Is every Protestant who disagrees with another Protestant “arguing just to argue”?

No.

I am saying that Catholics consistently claim they are completely unified in their theology and Protestants aren’t.

I am saying Catholics suffer the same problems of heretical beliefs trying to squeeze their way into and corrupt the faith just as Protestants.

I am saying that both have members who are in the process of understanding and learning and not everyone has a good understanding simply because of their church affiliation.

I am further stating that when I claim some Catholics can misunderstand what is taught by the Catholic Church, and Catholics come back and claim I am making a statement as to what the entire CC believes,…

that seems argumentative to me. I did not say the entire CC believes confession is a free pass to sin. Nor did I say the CC teaches that.

I said some Catholics can mistakenly believe that.

The same “rules” apply to both Catholics and Protestants. We are human. D None of us has all the answers. We share our thoughts, ideas, and understanding with each other. That is good as God often uses us to speak to others.

Where we fail - on both sides - is assuming we know what the other guy believes because he is not Catholic or Protestant.

Should I assume all Catholics believe in birth control because some reject the RC teaching on this subject? No.

But Catholics claim that they have Tradition - the correct interpretation and that Protestants are divided because they don’t have a source for correct interpretation of Scriptures.

I am saying, if that were true wouldn’t all Catholics then believe the exact same things?

Catholics and Protestants share this problem.

 

[Peter_J]

No.

I am saying that Catholics consistently claim they are completely unified in their theology and Protestants aren’t.

I believe that Catholics are united in our theology – but that doesn’t mean every single Catholic. There are, of course, “renegade” Catholics.

Nor does it mean that Catholics agree on everything, but rather that we agree in those areas where agreement is necessary. There have always been areas of legitimate diversity of opinion – in fact, there were even more such areas in the early Church than there are today. For example, 2nd century Catholics didn’t all agree that Mary was perpetually virgin, but nowadays we do.

I am saying Catholics suffer the same problems of heretical beliefs trying to squeeze their way into and corrupt the faith just as Protestants.

I am saying that both have members who are in the process of understanding and learning and not everyone has a good understanding simply because of their church affiliation.

I am further stating that when I claim some Catholics can misunderstand what is taught by the Catholic Church, and Catholics come back and claim I am making a statement as to what the entire CC believes,…

that seems argumentative to me. I did not say the entire CC believes confession is a free pass to sin. Nor did I say the CC teaches that.

I said some Catholics can mistakenly believe that.

The same “rules” apply to both Catholics and Protestants. We are human. D None of us has all the answers. We share our thoughts, ideas, and understanding with each other. That is good as God often uses us to speak to others.

Where we fail - on both sides - is assuming we know what the other guy believes because he is not Catholic or Protestant.

Should I assume all Catholics believe in birth control because some reject the RC teaching on this subject? No.

But Catholics claim that they have Tradition - the correct interpretation and that Protestants are divided because they don’t have a source for correct interpretation of Scriptures.

I am saying, if that were true wouldn’t all Catholics then believe the exact same things?

Catholics and Protestants share this problem.

It strikes me that perhaps your complaints are not so much against Catholicism as such, but against “internet Catholicism”?

P.S. Even when talking about “internet Catholicism”, it’s important to distinguish content that is user-generated from content that isn’t. For example, stuff posted by myself and my fellow Catholics on a discussion forum is a lot different from an “Ask an apologist” type section.

 

[Ginger2]

It strikes me that perhaps your complaints are not so much against Catholicism as such, but against “internet Catholicism”?

This is true. I went to a funeral for my cousin last week and my sister and I got on religion. Never of us remained Catholic. Mentioned some of the things I have been discussing here and commented, “Online Catholics are not nice like the Catholics in our family.”

That is how most of you strike me. However, I am very aware that when we can’t see the person we are talking with, it is much easier to misunderstand.

P.S. Even when talking about “internet Catholicism”, it’s important to distinguish content that is user-generated from content that isn’t. For example, stuff posted by myself and my fellow Catholics on a discussion forum is a lot different from an “Ask an apologist” type section.

Well, I think there is some opinion running thru the Ask an Apologist thread, too. But that’s a whole nother issue.

(Yes, I intentionally used bad grammar. no need to correct me. I am already aware.)

 

[ac_claire]

See, here we are again talking about these vague “Catholics” and “Protestants” we’ve know, which does nothing to further any good discussion. I mean, where can you really go from there? I’d like to join in, but I don’t know how to debate this way lol.

 

[Peter_J]

This is true. I went to a funeral for my cousin last week and my sister and I got on religion. Never of us remained Catholic. Mentioned some of the things I have been discussing here and commented, “Online Catholics are not nice like the Catholics in our family.”

That is how most of you strike me. However, I am very aware that when we can’t see the person we are talking with, it is much easier to misunderstand.

I think anonymity is a significant factor. Many people (Catholic or otherwise) seem to like the internet because they can post stuff that wouldn’t fly in a real-life situation.

Well, I think there is some opinion running thru the Ask an Apologist thread, too.

I haven’t really been there much, although I have spent some time at EWTN’s Q&A webpage (one section of which is handle by “Catholic Answers”).

But that’s a whole nother issue.

You know that’s actually not very good gramm – oh wait.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

No.

I am saying that Catholics consistently claim they are completely unified in their theology and Protestants aren’t.

I am saying Catholics suffer the same problems of heretical beliefs trying to squeeze their way into and corrupt the faith just as Protestants.

.

You can say it, but it isn’t true.

There is one Catholic Faith.

On issues upon which the Church has determined the truth, no other position is consistent with the Catholic faith.

Faithful Catholics submit to Jesus as revealed by his Church.

In other words, we don’t lean on our own understanding.

 

[ufamtobie]

But the question is HOW did David confess, and how did he know he was forgiven? Let’s look at the process in action. In 2 Samuel 12, after his adultering with Bathsheba. David confesses TO NATHAN that he has sinned against God. He certainly doesn’t just take himself off to the closet and pray privately.

Additionally the prophet Nathan, God’s mouthpiece to David, then TELLS David in God’s name that he is forgiven. There’s no indication that David presumed on this forgiveness without the verbal confession to Nathan and the verbal assurance from him.

We see in this episode the reasons we need to confess to a priest - we need someone to be our Nathan, through whom we confess our sins to God, and who in turn as God’s mouthpiece can TELL us that we have been forgiven, for we simply cannot presume so otherwise.

Hello Lily,

Yes, we need our Nathan so that we can be told that we are forgiven by Christ.

2 Samuel 12 I believe it will be a good NEW “THREAD” to start.

Ufamtobie

 

[Ginger2]

Hello Lily,

Yes, we need our Nathan so that we can be told that we are forgiven by Christ.

2 Samuel 12 I believe it will be a good NEW “THREAD” to start.

Ufamtobie

Nathan wasn’t a priest. He was a prophet.

A priest did not tell King David he was forgiven. A prophet told King David he was forgiven AND told him what consequences he would suffer due to his sin.

Priests performed rituals.
Prophets spoke what God told them to say - they didn’t know on their own. Prophets heard God speak in one form or another and repeated what God told them to tell the people or person.

 

[Pier]

Nathan wasn’t a priest. He was a prophet.

A priest did not tell King David he was forgiven. A prophet told King David he was forgiven AND told him what consequences he would suffer due to his sin.

Priests performed rituals.
Prophets spoke what God told them to say - they didn’t know on their own. Prophets heard God speak in one form or another and repeated what God told them to tell the people or person.

Priests speak & do what Christ taught them to do - they didn’t make it up on their own. Christ told the Apostles what to do, and they repeated what God told them to do from person to person, or in this case, priest to priest…

It’s called tradition.

 

[Ginger2]

Priests speak & do what Christ taught them to do - they didn’t make it up on their own. Christ told the Apostles what to do, and they repeated what God told them to do from person to person, or in this case, priest to priest…

It’s called tradition.

Prophets and Priests are not the same thing.
The Apostles were prophets as they received the Gospel directly from Jesus, who IS God.

They were not priests.

A priest’s function was to make a sin offering, not to speak for God, not to forgive the sins. (Lev 16:3 )

Once Jesus Christ completed his mission, these offering were no longer required.

Hebrews 10

That is the difference. Priests made sacrifices 11 that can never take away sins.

But Jesus 9 … takes away the first to establish the second.
10 By this “will,” we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Your priests cannot absolve sins.

 

[LilyM]

Prophets and Priests are not the same thing.
The Apostles were prophets as they received the Gospel directly from Jesus, who IS God.

They were not priests.

A priest’s function was to make a sin offering, not to speak for God, not to forgive the sins. (Lev 16:3 )

Once Jesus Christ completed his mission, these offering were no longer required.

Hebrews 10

That is the difference. Priests made sacrifices 11 that can never take away sins.

But Jesus 9 … takes away the first to establish the second.
10 By this “will,” we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Your priests cannot absolve sins.

But if what you’re saying is true then the Apostles certainly didn’t need the ability to absolve peoples’ sins EITHER. They needed it no more than anyone in this day and age does. So why on earth did Jesus give THEM the power to absolve?

Moreover, Jesus commissioned them to forgive sins straight after He was risen - in other words while He was still here on earth to forgive people personally if He had so wished. Staggeringly illogical behaviour for one who is, you allege, trying to teach us that forgiveness comes through Him alone, and via no other person, no?

 

[Ginger2]

And WHY exactly did the priests make sacrifices? Among other reasons, to expiate (obtain forgiveness for) the sins of the people. Read Leviticus.

People who sinned would come up to the temple with their sin-offering animal, lay their hand on the head of the beast (unless it was a bird instead, I suppose) and CONFESS their sins to the priest, who would then slaughter the animal on the sinner’s behalf and offer it to God for the forgiveness of that person’s sins.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see a parallel between this role of the OT priesthood and what our Catholic priests do today in the confessional. Minus the animal sacrifice of course (thank goodness).

What you are forgetting is this practice ended with the fulfillment of the NT. The OT is a shadow of the things to come - read Hebrews.

The only priests even mentioned in the NT are those opposing Jesus.

 

[LilyM]

What you are forgetting is this practice ended with the fulfillment of the NT. The OT is a shadow of the things to come - read Hebrews.

The only priests even mentioned in the NT are those opposing Jesus.

I rewrote that post. By your logic Christ would’ve had no reason to give even the Apostles the power to absolve sins then.

By the way Jesus tells the Apostles to OBEY the spiritual authorities - those who sit on the seat of Moses - the very same who opposed Him - just not to be hypocrites as they were.

 

[Ginger2]

I rewrote that post. By your logic Christ would’ve had no reason to give even the Apostles the power to absolve sins then.

As I have said before, I believe the Catholic Church is misinterpreting that verse.

The Bible clearly states, only God can forgive sins. Scripture is consistent and does not contradict itself.

The Apostles were not forgiven sins in the same sense as God. For that to be true they would either have had to see into the person’s heart, AND know the mind of God, which Scriptures says is impossible,

OR had God speaking to them directly in each case.

Are you suggesting that each and every priest has direct communication with God, and is told by God who He will forgive and who He will not forgive?