Protestants, can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?

[ufamtobie]

John 20: 21-23
He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Clearly Jesus was addressing the power to forgive sins ONLY to his Apostles and to their Successors for the forgivness of sins.

Yes, we all must forgive our brothers and sisters if they have wronged us, but what if we have wronged God, can our brothers and sisters forgive us for THE WRONGS/SINS we have done to God? **NO! **

We who have DONE WRONG must go to the Church this is how Jesus Christ wants it to be and since we no longer have the actual Apostles here with us to forgive us our sins against God we go to their Successors the Catholic Priests.

Yes, we can go directly to Jesus Christ so that he can forgive us our sins, but are your sins forgiven or are they retained Hmmm! Good Question.

Many protestants go directly to Jesus/alter call for forgivness and think you are forgiven, but perhaps YOUR SINS are retained you would never truely know if you were forgiven or your sins retained by our Lord until you meet Our Lord face to face, but that WILL be too late to find out that your sins was retained. OUCH!

Jesus Christ wants us to go to his Catholic Church that he left and recieve the forgiveness of our sins and hear these beautiful words " your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more" Or hear the words your sins are retained. If retained you WILL still have a chance to ammend your life here on earth.

Yes, it is humbling/ to go to confession and confess ones many sins to a priest the Successors of the Apostles, but this is what Jesus Christ wants us all to do in John 20: 21-23 and through the Grace of Jesus Christ, I do AMEN

The Father sends Jesus, Jesus send the Apostles, the Apostles send the Bishops/Cardinals/ Priest an unbroken succession.

Ufamtobie

 

[O.S.Luke]

Weren’t you asking a question?

 

[Hisalone]

Weren’t you asking a question?

 

[Pokedaughter]

“Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

The person is not the receiver of the power to forgive but it is the Holy Spirit whom this statement is directed toward. Therefore a person is not able to forgive sins, only God is, through the communication of the Holy Spirit to Christ who intercedes on our behalf. Therefore a Catholic Priest is not the only person necessary for confession but anyone who is in the Holy Priesthood…namely, those believers who know Jesus as Saviour and have thus “received” the Holy Spirit from God.

Reference Scripture:
1 Peter 2:4-10

"*4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”[a] 7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,"[c] 8and,
“A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”[d] They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."

Confession to a Catholic Priest is awesome if that priest is in good relationship with God and is a believer. Since all believers are part of the “Royal Priesthood”, as a protestant, we believe we can confess our sins to other believers and God will acknowlege He has forgiven us so we can move past the sin and be effective ministers for Him.

Blessings!*

 

[NDfan]

John 20: 21-23
He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Clearly Jesus was addressing the power to forgive sins ONLY to his Apostles and to their Successors for the forgivness of sins.

Yes, we all must forgive our brothers and sisters if they have wronged us, but what if we have wronged God, can our brothers and sisters forgive us for THE WRONGS/SINS we have done to God? **NO! **

We who have DONE WRONG must go to the Church this is how Jesus Christ wants it to be and since we no longer have the actual Apostles here with us to forgive us our sins against God we go to their Successors the Catholic Priests.

Yes, we can go directly to Jesus Christ so that he can forgive us our sins, but are your sins forgiven or are they retained Hmmm! Good Question.

Many protestants go directly to Jesus/alter call for forgivness and think you are forgiven, but perhaps YOUR SINS are retained you would never truely know if you were forgiven or your sins retained by our Lord until you meet Our Lord face to face, but that WILL be too late to find out that your sins was retained. OUCH!

Jesus Christ wants us to go to his Catholic Church that he left and recieve the forgiveness of our sins and hear these beautiful words " your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more" Or hear the words your sins are retained. If retained you WILL still have a chance to ammend your life here on earth.

Yes, it is humbling/ to go to confession and confess ones many sins to a priest the Successors of the Apostles, but this is what Jesus Christ wants us all to do in John 20: 21-23 and through the Grace of Jesus Christ, I do AMEN

The Father sends Jesus, Jesus send the Apostles, the Apostles send the Bishops/Cardinals/ Priest an unbroken succession.

Ufamtobie

Where in John 20: 21-23 does Jesus use the word successors?? HIS statement here applies to the church as a whole. That’s why in the Our Father Jesus tells us to ask the Father for forgiveness but as we forgive others.

GOD is the only one that can forgive sin. Period!! We can forgive each other for sinning against one another but only GOD can pronounce forgiveness for the actuall sin itself. That’s why Christ died and that’s why we follow HIM. We are justified in GOD’s eyes by the blood of Christ.

PEACE

 

[Callin]

John 20: 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

The person is not the receiver of the power to forgive but it is the Holy Spirit whom this statement is directed toward.

So what if the original language of the Bible uses the plural form of “you” instead of the singular (as opposed to English, where we use the same word “you” for both one person and multiple people)? Would this indicate that this interpretation is wrong?

Or would it indicate that God is giving multiple Holy Spirits the power to forgive?

Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained.

ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς· ἄν τινων κρατῆτε, κεκράτηνται.

All the nouns in this verse are plural “WHOSE sins” and “YOU ALL remit,” “WHOSE sins” and “YOU ALL shall retain.”

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

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…

 

[Steadfast]

Yes, a Catholic priest can forgive sins because, technically, anyone can and does forgive sins when they preach the Gospel and by grace the Gospel is received.

But also, the office of the keys includes the great privilege of granting absolution to poor sinners. This privilege is, by order, practiced by the church in the persons of her pastors and is always related to the preaching of the cross, which is after all the only way sins can be forgiven.

The church has no right to require “satisfaction” of the redeemed since Christ has already fully satisfied the justice of God on their behalf and now bespeaks them righteous.

 

[SyCarl]

I too would ask where this passage talks about successors. If it includes successors, why does it only seem to apply in this case and not other instances where Jesus gave authority to His Apostles?

Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness.
(Matthew 10:1 NASB)

Do Catholic priests or bishops have the ability to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness? If so, why don’t they use it? If not, why should John 20:23 apply to successors any more than Matthew 10:1?

 

[Peter_J]

I too would ask where this passage talks about successors. If it includes successors, why does it only seem to apply in this case and not other instances where Jesus gave authority to His Apostles?

Do Catholic priests or bishops have the ability to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness? If so, why don’t they use it? If not, why should John 20:23 apply to successors any more than Matthew 10:1?

I believe that the idea of “succession” applies to Matthew 10:1 as well as to John 20:23. Consider

“Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.”

• James 5:13-16

Notice that when he says “the elders of the church”, he doesn’t add the qualifier “if they were among Jesus’ original 12 Apostles”.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

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…

Whoa… maybe you mean Reconciliation?

Let me see if I can shed a bit of light on this. Ufamtobie’s arguments I think point to the very different approaches Christians take in interpreting Scripture. (Since Ufamtobie went so far beyond the original question posted in the thread title, I think it’s fair to say the real challenge is something different.)

Here’s the KJV (used because the RCC recognizes it as a liturgically valid translation):

20And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.

21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

One approach to Scripture interpretation and application is to look at it as a kind of Euclidean geometry for Christians. In other words, all the principles are there and proper application of logic can derive the answer to any question. Not only that, but you can pretty much derive the rest of the book from any portion of it.

Under this method, it’s pretty weak to cite this passage as evidence for the Vatican-led church’s priests’ ability to forgive sins (as opposed to anyone the Vatican doesn’t recognize as a priest). As pointed out earlier, nothing gets mentioned of any successors. Worse yet, Thomas misses out entirely. None of the elements of the sacrament of reconciliation really show up here, not even the priests’ verbal proclamation of forgiveness. Pretty pathetic as evidence.

Okay, I’ve got that one out of the way. Nobody really uses that method to interpret Scripture anyway, unless they’re proselytizing. Single-passage prooftexting is a generally weak approach.

Another method is to approach Scripture as a more limited communication from God to humanity. The general principles are there, but have to be read in context. Weaknesses inherent in human language give Scripture an inevitable fuzziness. There simply can’t be a specific verse for every specific question.

So how do you fill in the gaps? This is really where Protestants and Catholics separate.

For Catholics, Tradition and traditions fill in the gaps. If you want to know about the specifics of special charisms, look at the current practices and ancient teachings the Vatican approves of. Catholics like OneTrueCathApos interpret this passage as an obvious reference to their system of confession and penance, not because the passage’s verbiage requires it but because their Tradition and current practices say so.

Protestants either don’t think the gaps need filling in or feel the gaps aren’t that big to begin with. Did the Apostles receive a special charism to forgive sins? Protestants who don’t think the gaps need filling would say “So what if they did? They’re gone, and other passages deal with what the rest of us are supposed to do.” Protestants who don’t think the gaps are that big might say “So what if they did? We are all supposed to hear each others’ confessions of sin (James 5:16), so it’s hardly a surprise they would have done so too.”

In the end, of course, we’re all guilty of trying to force Scripture to say what we want, rather than letting it challenge what we’d like to say.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I too would ask where this passage talks about successors. If it includes successors, why does it only seem to apply in this case and not other instances where Jesus gave authority to His Apostles?

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.

 

[ufamtobie]

Where in John 20: 21-23 does Jesus use the word successors?? HIS statement here applies to the church as a whole. That’s why in the Our Father Jesus tells us to ask the Father for forgiveness but as we forgive others.

GOD is the only one that can forgive sin. Period!! We can forgive each other for sinning against one another but only GOD can pronounce forgiveness for the actuall sin itself. That’s why Christ died and that’s why we follow HIM. We are justified in GOD’s eyes by the blood of Christ.

PEACE

Dan,

True, Jesus Christ is the only one to forgive sin’s of Men PERIOD!!! Then why then did Jesus (John 20: 21-23) breathed upon the Apostles the Holy Spirit, in order to forgive or retain the sins of men?

The answer to the above question. Is that Our Lord Jesus Christ, wants us to got to his Apostles/Successors to His Church that we can be forgiven of Our Sins. In other words you and I were not breathed upon with the Holy Spirit “at this high level of GRACE” in order to forgive sins of men.

Dan, This is how we know that you and I were not given this High Level of Grace in order to forgive or retain the sins of men. Here it goes… Dan, can you retain my Sins? …

Dan, The answer is that you have NO RIGHT to retain my sins, for the Lord says we MUST forgive all who sin against us if we do not forgive but retain the sin we have added Sin on us. Therefore you can’t retain my sins against you, or I you, we must forgive each other PERIOD!..

Therefore who was Jesus Speaking to in (John 20: 21-23)?

Obviously, The Lord was speaking to the Apostels and to their Successors those who are the Leaders/Apostles/Bishops/Cardinals/Priests of his One True Apostlic Church only these can forgive and retain our sins by the power of the Holy Spirit breathed upon them

Dan, you mention above where is the word Succession in (John 20:21-23)You will not find it…

However you will find the “DEFINITION” of the word SUCCESSION and that is in** (ACTS 1: 20-26)…‘MAY ANOTHER TAKE HIS OFFICE.’ It is ENTIRELY fitting, therefore, that one of those who was of our company while the Lord Jesus moved among us, From the baptism of John until the day he was taken up from us, should be named as witness with us in his resurection." At that THEY NOMINATED two JOSEPH (CALLED BARSABBAS, ALSO KNOWN AS JUSTICE) and MATTHIAS. Then they prayed: O Lord, you read the hearts of men. Make known to us which of these two YOU choose for the APOSTILIC MINISTRY, Replacing JUDAS, who deserted the CAUSE and went the wya he was destined to go." THEY THEN DREW LOTS BETWEEN THE TWO MEN. THE CHOICE FELL TO MATTHIAS, WHO THEN WAS ADDED TO THE ELEVEN APOSTELS**

Dan my man, you may not read the word “SUCCESION” in the bible, better yet you read the “DEFINITION” of Succession in (Acts 1:20-26) above.

Dan, what does this mean to you “MAY ANOTHER TAKE HIS OFFICE”? I will tell you what it means Dan, it means “SUCCESSION” plain and simple period. Matthias took the seat of Judas as an Apostel. Therfore you can say that Matthias was the Successor of Judas.

However Matthias, was not present when Our Lord breathed Holy Spirit upon the Apostles to forgive or retain the sins of men in **(John 20: 21-23) **Dan, I ask you does the Newly added Apostle Mathias, have the same power to forgive mens sins or retain them? …YES Matthias does through the Succession of the Apostles, or the words “MAY ANOTHER TAKE HIS OFFICE” (Acts 1: 20)

Throughout the centuries in the Catholic Church for over 2000 years the Succession occurs “MAY ANOTHER TAKE HIS PLACE” such as the Popes from St. Peter to Our Present Pope, Benedict XVI “SUCCESSION” The power of the Holy Spirit, PERIOD!!!

Ufamtobie

 

[Ginger2]

No. A priest cannot forgive sins any more than a layperson can.

God can see into a person’s heart, but a priest cannot.

If a person is confessing because he mistakenly believes he can sin all he wants and have those sins removed by a priest, Are his sins really forgiven?

If he goes out and repeats those sins and then go to confession to be absolved again, and again, Are those sins really forgiven?

The priest will take for granted that person is repentant because that person came to confession.

The priest will say, “Your sins are forgiven”, but are those sins really forgiven?

No. Therefore the priest has no power to forgive sins.

 

[Ginger2]

A priest cannot retain sins either.

God can see into a person’s heart, but a priest cannot.

If a priest refuses to hear my confession, then can I not go to Christ Jesus, who is my mediator? The Bible says I can!

If there is one mediator between God and man, then Jesus, who knows my heart will forgive me even tho your priest will not.

A priest cannot retain the sins of a truly repentant person.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Dan,
Then why then did Jesus (John 20: 21-23) breathed upon the Apostles the Holy Spirit, in order to forgive or retain the sins of men?

The answer to the above question. Is that Our Lord Jesus Christ, wants us to got to his Apostles/Successors to His Church that we can be forgiven of Our Sins. In other words you and I were not breathed upon with the Holy Spirit “at this high level of GRACE” in order to forgive sins of men.

Another good example of interpretation by tradition rather than by the text. Nothing in the text requires us to believe the receiving of the Holy Ghost by the apostles is different from our own. Strictly speaking, it’s not necessary to interpret the receiving of the Holy Ghost as having to do with the ability to forgive. It could also be interpreted as part of receiving peace, or the sending. It’s a more reasonable reading, but not strictly required.

Dan, you mention above where is the word Succession in (John 20:21-23)You will not find it…

[snip]

At that THEY NOMINATED two JOSEPH (CALLED BARSABBAS, ALSO KNOWN AS JUSTICE) and MATTHIAS. Then they prayed: O Lord, you read the hearts of men. Make known to us which of these two YOU choose for the APOSTILIC MINISTRY, Replacing JUDAS, who deserted the CAUSE and went the wya he was destined to go." THEY THEN DREW LOTS BETWEEN THE TWO MEN. THE CHOICE FELL TO MATTHIAS, WHO THEN WAS ADDED TO THE ELEVEN APOSTELS

[snip]

Ufamtobie

Interesting. I hadn’t thought of that passage. I’d always thought of it strictly as “replacement,” not succession. Even with the looser interpretation, however, it still doesn’t point to the kind of succession the Vatican claims for its bishops. A dead apostle gets replaced/succeeded. A strict following of this passage as a model for succession would only allow twelve total successors to exist at any one time.

Again, it’s a good example of interpretation by tradition rather than the text. I’m not saying there’s anything terrible about interpretation by tradition. We all do that, to some extent. It’s just good to acknowledge where the interpretation is really coming from, though.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Whoa… maybe you mean Reconciliation?

Let me see if I can shed a bit of light on this. Ufamtobie’s arguments I think point to the very different approaches Christians take in interpreting Scripture. (Since Ufamtobie went so far beyond the original question posted in the thread title, I think it’s fair to say the real challenge is something different.)

Here’s the KJV (used because the RCC recognizes it as a liturgically valid translation):

20And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.

21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

One approach to Scripture interpretation and application is to look at it as a kind of Euclidean geometry for Christians. In other words, all the principles are there and proper application of logic can derive the answer to any question. Not only that, but you can pretty much derive the rest of the book from any portion of it.

Under this method, it’s pretty weak to cite this passage as evidence for the Vatican-led church’s priests’ ability to forgive sins (as opposed to anyone the Vatican doesn’t recognize as a priest). As pointed out earlier, nothing gets mentioned of any successors. Worse yet, Thomas misses out entirely. None of the elements of the sacrament of reconciliation really show up here, not even the priests’ verbal proclamation of forgiveness. Pretty pathetic as evidence.

Okay, I’ve got that one out of the way. Nobody really uses that method to interpret Scripture anyway, unless they’re proselytizing. Single-passage prooftexting is a generally weak approach.

Another method is to approach Scripture as a more limited communication from God to humanity. The general principles are there, but have to be read in context. Weaknesses inherent in human language give Scripture an inevitable fuzziness. There simply can’t be a specific verse for every specific question.

So how do you fill in the gaps? This is really where Protestants and Catholics separate.

For Catholics, Tradition and traditions fill in the gaps. If you want to know about the specifics of special charisms, look at the current practices and ancient teachings the Vatican approves of. Catholics like OneTrueCathApos interpret this passage as an obvious reference to their system of confession and penance, not because the passage’s verbiage requires it but because their Tradition and current practices say so.

Protestants either don’t think the gaps need filling in or feel the gaps aren’t that big to begin with. Did the Apostles receive a special charism to forgive sins? Protestants who don’t think the gaps need filling would say “So what if they did? They’re gone, and other passages deal with what the rest of us are supposed to do.” Protestants who don’t think the gaps are that big might say “So what if they did? We are all supposed to hear each others’ confessions of sin (James 5:16), so it’s hardly a surprise they would have done so too.”

In the end, of course, we’re all guilty of trying to force Scripture to say what we want, rather than letting it challenge what we’d like to say.

No, I don’t interpret anything because “my church tells me to do so”, it is interpreted in the way that Jesus Christ wanted it to be interpreted, and in the end it is the Protestant standpoint that is guilty of trying to force Scripture to say what you want.
Pennance comes from God, it is Biblical and a priest is the only one who has the power to absolve your sins.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

No, I don’t interpret anything because “my church tells me to do so”, it is interpreted in the way that Jesus Christ wanted it to be interpreted, and in the end it is the Protestant standpoint that is guilty of trying to force Scripture to say what you want.
Pennance comes from God, it is Biblical and a priest is the only one who has the power to absolve your sins.

Thank you! I couldn’t have come up with a clearer example of how these arguments usually end up, or the pointlessness of continuing them.

He said
She said
And we can’t agree
On a referee

 

[LutheranDK]

Confession to a Catholic Priest is awesome if that priest is in good relationship with God and is a believer. Since all believers are part of the “Royal Priesthood”, as a protestant, we believe we can confess our sins to other believers and God will acknowlege He has forgiven us so we can move past the sin and be effective ministers for Him.

One needs to be careful about speaking for others. I, for one, am not completely prepared to subscribe to the idea that ALL believers can confess another believer.
Although it IS true that your viewpoint is the general consensus amongst protestants, it is not 100% accurate. High-Church protestantism (High-Church Lutheranism and Anglicanism (as far as I know?)) wouldn’t say that.

To the OP:
I believe that the power to forgive and retain sin is in the posession of the shepherds of congregations - not exclusively RC priests (please note that I said “not EXCLUSIVELY”).

In my view, your reasoning is far-fetched, and not really all that great.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Thank you! I couldn’t have come up with a clearer example of how these arguments usually end up, or the pointlessness of continuing them.

He said
She said
And we can’t agree
On a referee

And if I put an apple in front of you, you’d still insist it was a pear.