Protestants, can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?

[Cinette]

Ginger -

2Ti 4:20 Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick. Why did he leave him sick. Why didn’t Paul heal him?

Has it happened that you prayed for a sick person and that person was not healed and then died? Does that mean that God has lost his power to heal?

 

[Cinette]

*Ginger –

I have gone back to look at the postings on this thread to try to understand you better. I want to be fair. When there is a discussion we need to know something about our interlocutor – there have to be some preconditions (this is universal). In your “profile” you identify yourself as being Protestant. That is very broad because there are many different kinds of Protestants: Lutherans do not believe as Baptists and Baptists do not believe as Methodists or Penticostals or Evangelicals or Presbyterians (one ex-Presbyterian called them the “split Ps). So one has no idea exactly what your position is except non-Catholic.

In post #14 the questions you pose do not give the impression that you grew up Catholic because they are basic and elementary. Any 7 year old who has made their first Holy Communion would tell you that a priest absolves sin by the power vested in him by God but that God sees the heart of the penitent and if the latter is unrepentant the sins are not forgiven.

In post #40 “When a priest says “Your sins are forgiven” he is deceiving that Catholic – he is unwittingly telling a lie.” This is nonsense and if he were telling a lie it would not be unwittingly anyway (unwittingly means without knowing – the priest is not uneducated). Priests are trained in the seminaries over a period of several years – sometimes 10 years,

Then you kept on and on about the priest not being able to forgive sins (totally ignoring John 20:21-23) etc. etc. and a number of people went to great lengths to explain to you about confession but you persisted. You see Ginger we were explaining what the Church teaches and what we believe. If you do not agree that is fine but don’t keep on about it.

Then you said that some Catholics think the confessional gives them a “free pass for sinning” – the Catholic who believes that has to be mentally retarded. Your friend who thought he could commit “premeditated venial sins” must have been looking out the window during catechism classes.

We know that “scriptures don’t contradict themselves” – any well formed Catholic will tell you that and I am sure many Protestants also.

#59 is an excellent and painstaking explanation of Confession by Reuben – still in post #65 you ask “How does a Catholic know he is forgiven, since we have established the priest cannot remove sins from an insincere confessor”. I can’t believe that you can ask that after all the explanations you were given. On top of it you insist you were “raised Catholic”!!! It is not possible. And you wonder why a number of posters began to doubt your credentials? In #66 Reuben again patiently explains the Catholic belief on confession.

As OneTrueCathApos said in posting #72 “Why do Protestants always seem to be consumed with Catholic teaching and not their own?” We don’t argue with your beliefs. We might ask what your beliefs are and then accept the explanation for what it is – your beliefs.

#73 This is ridiculous posting because it is arguing about something that is agreed on both sides!!! Then you go on to say “A person can want to be forgiven without being repentant”. ???

#85 Anyone who sincerely repents and asks forgiveness from God will be forgiven - without the need of a priest. - Gospel according to Ginger2.

#87 Reuben patiently and painstakingly explains for the umpteenth time! Patience is indeed a virtue.

No wonder people were becoming suspicious of you because from your utterances nobody would guess let alone believe that you were “raised Catholic”. But that is not the point. What got us all irritated was your persistence and your inability to accept our beliefs and move on. You kept on and on about confession and never reached any conclusion

#106 A good post by you. You made sense and raised a good point “confessing is edifying…open up about problems in their lives and seek change.” Agreed. “….we need the entire Word of God.” Here we had some hope that our discussions had advanced because we had reached consensus. But then you argue on things we both believe – what is the sense in that? #114 The questions you ask and your comments do not attest to being Catholic.

#124 Ufamtobie raises doubts about your Catholicity – She asked you to respond “in the name of Jesus Christ”. You see Ginger when one has a discussion there has to be some preconditions.

In #165 you talk about Jesus giving the Holy Spirit to his disciples who gave the Holy Spirit to others who were not able to pass the Holy Spirit to anyone. These are statements that no Christian would make since we all know that we cannot “pass on” the Holy Spirit to anyone. The Holy Spirit is God – the third person of the Trinity! In #169 you again present arguments on topics about which we all agree thus causing confusion.

Then in #176 you say “Yes Cinette you did a very good job of explaining” and we think we are making progress and then you say silly things about St Paul losing the power to heal and on and on and on.

Ginger, now reflect and try to be reasonable. Apply some common sense. We are not against you.

Cinette

 

[ufamtobie]

This caught my attention as I just explained somewhere that I asked questions in catechism class and the nuns would become frustrated with me and say, “That’s just the way it is.”

Ginger,

What were your question, to these Nuns?

Ufamtobie

 

[Ginger2]

As I see it doctrines do not “evolve” - they are discerned.

The scriptures are so rich and so deep. For example the Trinity did not evolve, it was discerned. As the Church Authority emanating from the Apostles was formed and the scriptures were declared inspired and compiled into what today is the Bible, as these scriptures were studied and interpreted, the doctrine of the Trinity emerged from the conclusions which were reached. The Trinity was defined from the scriptures - it was there embedded in the scriptures.

So to say that “new doctrines evolve” is not Catholic - not even Christian I would say.

I do wish to point out that I am no theologian - I am a revert who is learning more about my Faith every day. So what I say is my understanding and perception.

The difference is the Trinity doctrine is plainly found in Scriptures.

 

[ufamtobie]

Not necessarily. The Apostles were prophets as they spoke for God. And clarified specifically when they spoke on their own authority apart from God.

God chose people to be His Earthly spokesperson all the time and did not give any sort of succession right to them.

**(ACTS 1: 20) …‘May another take his OFFICE.’

Ginger, what does the Above Bible verse mean to you?

Hmmm “May another take his Office” Who’s Office?

Ginger, Surely the Apostles were talking about the Office of “Judas the Betrayer” and the successor who took Judas office was Matthias.** Therefore wether you like it or not Mathias, was Judas Successor.

**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, The Bible verse mentions “THE CAUSE” Do you truely believe that the Apostles DESERTED the “CAUSE” when they died. Ginger I tell you the CAUSE CONTINUES!!! THROUGH SUCCESSION!!! THROUGH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. AMEN!**

QUOTE]Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, the gifts began to cease when they fulfilled their purpose even before the Apostles died.

**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.

**Ginger, it Also indicates/mentions **in (Acts 1: 25)"FOR THIS APOSTOLIC MINISTRY"

Ginger, hmmm This Apostolic Ministry that is spoken above in the Scriptures surely has successors. Who should I beleive the Bible according to Ginger or the Holy Bible? I believe in the Holy Bible**.

Toward the end of his ministry, Paul ceased to be able to heal people.

Ginger, It is not Paul who healed People, it is Jesus Christ who heals People.

**Ginger, don’t desert the CAUSE For Only the Catholic Church that has THE “APOSTOLIC MINISTRY”.

Ufamtobie**

 

[Ginger2]

**(ACTS 1: 20)

Ufamtobie**

Wow! You are reasoning from Scriptures and doing so very well, I might add. This I not only respect, but admire.

If I wanted I could could come back with rebuttals quickly as I usually do, but if I did I would be reasoning from a point of having my mind made up - I criticize others for that.

Besides a well-discerned response such as yours deserved a well discerned response as well.

I am going shopping today. But will prayerfully read these verses when I come home before responding.

 

[Peter_J]

As OneTrueCathApos said in posting #72 “Why do Protestants always seem to be consumed with Catholic teaching and not their own?” We don’t argue with your beliefs. We might ask what your beliefs are and then accept the explanation for what it is – your beliefs.

That’s very impressive. So is this

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’

• Luke 18:11-12

 

[Peter_J]

Wow! You are reasoning from Scriptures and doing so very well, I might add. This I not only respect, but admire.

If I wanted I could could come back with rebuttals quickly as I usually do, but if I did I would be reasoning from a point of having my mind made up - I criticize others for that.

Besides a well-discerned response such as yours deserved a well discerned response as well.

I am going shopping today. But will prayerfully read these verses when I come home before responding.

Sounds like a good idea. There’s no need for this thread to go from bad to worse.

 

[Cinette]

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

One compelling biblical fact that points clearly to Simon Peter’s primacy among the 12 Apostles and his importance and centrality to the drama of Christ’s earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, etc) 195 times in the course of the New Testament. The next most often-mentioned Apostle is St John, who is mentioned a mere 29 times.

Matthews 16:13-20 “Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” * And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eljah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”* He said to them,* “But who do you say that I am?”* Simon Peter replied, *“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” * And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter; and on this rock I will build my Church and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earthy shall be loosed in heaven……”

St Irenaeus of Lyons A.D 189 – “The blessed apostles (Peter and Paul), having founded and built up the Church (of Rome) they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus (the 2nd Pope) in the letter to Timothy (2 Tim 4:21) To him succeeded Anacletus and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes……" (Against Heresies 3:3.3)

Pope St Clement of Rome circa A.D. 80 “Through countryside and city (the Apostles) preached and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier…. Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-4, 44:1-3)

St Irenaeus of Lyons S.D. 189 – “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the Tradition of the Apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about (Against Heresies 3:3:1)

---

By denying Peter was in Rome, you are trying to discredit Peter as having the primacy, and by doing so, you attempt to deny he was the first Pope, therefore the Catholic claim of Apostolic Succession would fall apart. By your denying Apostolic Succession, you will then try to show that the Catholic Church is not the Church which Jesus founded.

Interestingly, if you ever reach the point (which you never could), then it would be impossible for you to fill the void of which Church Jesus Christ did found if it were not the Catholic Church. So, you have presented a circular argument for yourself, an argument which has no beginning and no end.

But you will try in a futile attempt on your part, as you completely ignore an overwhelming deposit of genuine historical documents, and expert knowledgeable people to do the same.

---

Saint Augustine, “Letter to Generous”, 400 A.D., J1418
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole church.”

---

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
*That theory is not supported by anything in the Bible I know of. And it directly contradicts Revelation 21, which says that the apostles are the permanent foundation of the Church, that no one enters the city of God except through the apostles!

Revelation 21:12 says that in the city of God there are 12 gates, representing the 12 tribes of Israel (which also represent the completeness of the Church). People must pass through those gates, in other words be a part of the Church, to enter the city of God.

Then, in Rev. 21:14, it says, “And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

The gates, representing the Church, or the true paths of the Church, are of course supported by and built in the wall, the foundation of which is the apostles. Every believer must pass through the wall, the foundations of the apostles, to enter the city of God. Therefore this foundation of the apostles is an eternal bulwark for the Church, not a temporary one limited to the 1st century. Every Christian must pass through this wall to enter the city, both then and now. And this is the wall that, according to Rev. 21, keeps all that is unclean out of the Church.*

Cinette

 

[Peter_J]

By denying Peter was in Rome, you are trying to discredit Peter as having the primacy, and by doing so, you attempt to deny he was the first Pope, therefore the Catholic claim of Apostolic Succession would fall apart.

No it wouldn’t.

 

[ufamtobie]

Wow! You are reasoning from Scriptures and doing so very well, I might add. This I not only respect, but admire.

If I wanted I could could come back with rebuttals quickly as I usually do, but if I did I would be reasoning from a point of having my mind made up - I criticize others for that.

**Ginger,

Before reading these verses, ask the Holy Spirit for Guidence. Also Meditate, and while meditating, pretend you are Jesus Christ, YES YOU READ IT CORRECTLY Yes Pretend you are Jesus Christ and how would you being Jesus Christ would want Your CHURCH to grow throughout the centuries and what is Needed it, for this Church to grow and continue to grow when you/JESUS comes again.**

**And I am sure in the Name of Jesus Christ, you will one day come to believe that there is NO other way that a CHURCH can grow without an APOSTOLIC SUCCESSIONS/LEADER of the Church. **

**Ginger, Remeber (Acts 1: 25 FOR THIS APOSTOLIC MINISTRY,) **

Also, Remember that this is a (Acts 1:25**“CAUSE”)** until the end of the world.

It Must be an Apostolic Ministry through Successions and this “CAUSE” That Judas betrayed will never end until Our Lord and Savior comes for us, and the Apostles Knew this, this is the REASON why they Prayed to Jesus Christ (ACTS 1: 20 …SO THAT ANOTHER MAY TAKE HIS OFFICE) and the Lot fell unto Matthias.

Ginger, Lets say you are right and it ended with the Apostles, this Apostolic Ministry. Then the “CAUSE” This “APOSTOLIC MINISRTY” would be dead, WE WOULD BE LOST, and The GATES OF HELL WOULD OF PREVAILED OVER IT!

**Ginger, again lets not abandoned this CAUSE like Judas did.

Merry Christ Mass,

Ufamtobie**

 

[4given]

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.

We do not need any Catholic priest to forgive our sins. He thinks he has the authority but only God has the authority to forgives sins against Himself and NO, he doen’t do it through a Catholic priest. The veil in the temple has been rent, praise God, and we have direct access to the throne through Christ. He is the ONLY Priest the Christian needs. You’re right, believe the Bible not men. Psalms 1178:8

 

[benedictus2]

The difference is the Trinity doctrine is plainly found in Scriptures.

No it isn’t. The Trinity is NOT PLAINLY found in scripture or there would not have been heresies such as Modalism, Monarchianism, Patripassionism, Socinianism and Tritheism.

 

[benedictus2]

We do not need any Catholic priest to forgive our sins. He thinks he has the authority but only God has the authority to forgives sins against Himself and NO, he doen’t do it through a Catholic priest. The veil in the temple has been rent, praise God, and we have direct access to the throne through Christ. He is the ONLY Priest the Christian needs. You’re right, believe the Bible not men. Psalms 1178:8

Go back through the thread. This kind of misconception has been dealt with satisfactorily by a few posters. Read patiently and with an open heart and mind.

 

[hillsmv]

A couple of possible interpretations (and I don’t know, I’m asking).

In terms of infusing the apostles with the Holy Spirit in order to pardon sins, couldn’t that be for giving them wise judgment in terms of assessing the sinner’s sincerity in his/her willingness to accept his/her sin as sin and not sin again? The decision it is still up to the Apostles (and their successors), but with the benefit of the judgment of the Holy Spirit?

Second, if the Apostles (and their successors) were given the power to absolve sins on their own terms, isn’t it possible that Catholic and Protestant priests have over the ages simply set up different sets of rules in carrying out that same charge? Catholic priests require direct confession to the priest, with the priest then able to assess the sincerity of the request, and to attach conditions (penance). Protestant priests (or at least the Episcopal ones I am familiar with) have a different set of rules/conditions to be met. That the confessor be willing to confess silently in his/her heart, led by a prayer in Church before a priest, and with such, the priest then directly accepts the confession as acceptable and grants absolution of the sin. In both cases, the confessor knows that without a true heart, the confession is not real nor is the absolution.

It just seems like two different ways to implement the power granted by Christ to the Apostles. The Catholic means seems more of a “hurdle” but as a result is more personally satisfying to those meeting the requirements. The Protestant means seems easier, less scary and maybe more open to abuse, but as a result maybe has more people willing to give up their sinning ways - and Christ advocates that people should freely give up their sins. So some benefits and drawbacks to each approach.

So, really, just some thoughts and questions. I am new to this.

 

[venite_adoremus]

Jesus Christ forgives sin. He delegated the authority to His Church to do so in His name. Sins are absolved in the name of the Holy Trinity by Catholic priests.

absolution = a formal freeing

A priest may also remove censures, interdicts, and excommunications imposed by the Church, as a lawful agent of Its governance.

Critics, do you have a clear understanding of what actually happens in the Sacrament of Penance?

 

[benedictus2]

Jesus Christ forgives sin. He delegated the authority to His Church to do so in His name. Sins are absolved in the name of the Holy Trinity by Catholic priests.

absolution = a formal freeing

A priest may also remove censures, interdicts, and excommunications imposed by the Church, as a lawful agent of Its governance.

Critics, do you have a clear understanding of what actually happens in the Sacrament of Penance?

AAAhh, you have hit a good point there.

As I have said in another thread, these people ought to read thoroughly first what the Church teaches before they start accusing the church of this and that crime

 

[benedictus2]

Ginger -

2Ti 4:20 Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick. Why did he leave him sick. Why didn’t Paul heal him?

Has it happened that you prayed for a sick person and that person was not healed and then died? Does that mean that God has lost his power to heal?

Well done!

Aah for clear thinking and good knowledge of scripture.:clapping:

 

[benedictus2]

This caught my attention as I just explained somewhere that I asked questions in catechism class and the nuns would become frustrated with me and say, “That’s just the way it is.”

Know what, I had exactly the same experience. She stopped short of throwing an eraser at me because she could not answer my question regarding purgatory so I made a promise that if I were to become a nun I would not join her order .

Nuns are not exactly the fountains of wisdom especially way back then. Heck, even theologians are not exactly that either. Women joined a religious congregation hopefully out of love of God ( and you have to love God an awful lot to forsake all others) and not because of their knowledge of religion although in the course of their formation they do get to learn a lot.

But that is all water under the bridge. There is now time to really learn and everything from books to the internet is avaialble to to those who truly seek the truth.

 

[Ginger2]

I have not yet taken the the to study the Scripture, but I have not forgotten.

I am home today but need to get ahead on work as I will be gone the next 2 days. Just thought I should let those of you who are discussing this with me know…

Ginger -

2Ti 4:20 Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick. Why did he leave him sick. Why didn’t Paul heal him?

Has it happened that you prayed for a sick person and that person was not healed and then died? Does that mean that God has lost his power to heal?

We all know God doesn’t lose His power. God is unchanging.

But human beings and spirits only have as much power as God gives them. And God can and does take away that power anytime He sees fit.

Have I prayed for a sick person who was not healed?

When I pray, I always ask God’s will be done. We know that no one lives forever. We must all die once. So for me to ask and expect people will not die is counter to the Will of God.

People sometimes come to me to ask for prayer as they have heard from others I have a gift. I always tell them it is up to God, but whatever happens they can trust God is answering their prayers in the best way possible - even if He doesn’t give them exactly what they have requested, they can rest assured they have received something better.

Cinette,

I wish you would stop taking what I say and applying it where I did not intend. It is not productive.

When Paul couldn’t heal someone, it was because God took away the gift of healing from Paul. NOT because God was unable, but because Paul had no power of his own - only what God gave him for as long as God desired.