Protestants, can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?

[SyCarl]

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.

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.

 

[Cinette]

Lisa, I was in a thread discussing where the Bible came from and whether or not the Catholics had uninspired books added…

The Catholics couldn’t or wouldn’t respond to the information I provided from Catholic sources. They had no answers to counter the facts I presented. All of a sudden the thread mysteriously disappeared.

I have asked about it, but they will not tell me why they deleted the thread.

Your Bible has extra books that do not belong in it. The are not God’s Word. Those uninspired books are used to support doctrines that are not supported in any inspired books.

The Catholic Church did not give us the Bible.

God gave the Jews the OT. We got it from them.

There is no dispute concerning the NT.

I was not on tht thread but I know Catholic well enough to know that they must have answered all questions exhaustively and painstakingly. I cannot accept your claim that your questions were ignored.:nope: :nope:

Which reminds me - don’t forget to respond to my post #396

Thank you

 

[Cinette]

So now I “obviously agree with Ginger”? Isn’t it funny how I’m the last one to know that?

Oh brother.

Yeah that was real prideful of Ginger to tell us that she isn’t Catholic. Good thing you put her in her place.

I’m really very sorry, Cinette. I think we have made a pretty good team in the past, but I just don’t want to be a part of whatever “holy war” you’re currently waging against any Protestants who dare to show their faces on this forum. (Maybe when you’re done, we can chat. Unless of course you decide that I’m a “traitor” for not joining the Protestant-bashing, and hence not someone you’d want to speak to.)

Blessings,

Protestant bashing? No Peter, I have said it before and I repeat “Protestants are treasures and they make excellent converts” Protestants keep us on our toes. Protestants who are studious, respectful and genuine.

You must remember that there are many types of non-Catholics. I believe that in America there are over 40 000 denominations each claiming to believe in the bible and each with different interpretations. Now there are Protestants like the Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans and others who are genuinely seeking truth and are open. We can learn from them.

Then you have the Fundamentalists who are totally unreasonable, propagate lies, have closed minds and so on… Everybody knows that. Most times you cannot debate with them. Some, of course, do reason and acknowledge truth.

You have to be selective and know the difference.

You confuse me Peter. I don’t know if you are black or white or grey! I just don’t know:shrug:

 

[Cinette]

John 20:21-23

Jesus gives His Apostles the authority to forgive sins. Where is there any indication that such power was to pass to anyone else, or in particular to priests? The Bible also tells us:

Has this power been passed on to priests as well? If so, why don’t the priests heal all the sick now? Can I take a relative who has Alzheimer’s to a priest and have it cured? If not, we would the authority to forgive of sins be passed on and not the authority to heal?

2 Corinthians 2:10

Nothing said in this verse about priests forgiving sin. Paul’s epistle is to the whole Corinthian church, not to the clergy in particular. Let’s add some context.

Is Paul talking about confession to a priest here? No, he is talking to the entire church. He speaks of the punishment inflicted by the majority. How does that relate to the present sacrament of penance and reconciliation? Paul is merely saying he forgives anyone the Corinthians forgive.

2 Corinthians 5:18

Let’s look at the next verse as well.

Now we can see what Paul is talking about. Is it a sacrament of reconciliation? No it is the preaching Gospel that God reconciled the world to Himself through Christ and by us he means the whole church.

This analogy is faulty. We can confess directly to God who is the friend who is offended. We don’t have to worry that we might forget or not recognize a sin, since He knows them all. The sacrament of confession would be akin to going to our friend’s neighbour and telling him we broke the ipod and asking him to forgive us on behalf of his neighbour.

Some people (not just priests) have the healing gift of the Holy Spirit. However, healing does not take place every time they lay hands on someone. God may have other plans.

Healing is not always physical healing - there is spiritual healing also. I remember certain confessions where the Priest has led me to spiritual healing. Miracles are one thing but healing is something else.

Ponder on that.

 

[Cinette]

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.

Jesus himself gave the power of forgiveness to the Apostles. We have discussed this on this thread and I suggest that you might like to go over the posts.

In my experience I have found Confession to be extremely important and in fact I intend to go more often. The discussions on this thread has made this very clear to me. One thing Confession has done for me is to avoid sin. When I am about to commit a sin I think of Confession and this has helped me to stop, think and decide against the sin.

Something I came across yesterday as I was thinking of purgatory and I commented on this on another thread:

Some say God does not demand expiation after forgiving sins. What about David? When he repented, Nathan told him: “The Lord, on his part, has forgiven you; you shall not die but since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you (Bathsheba) must surely die” (2 Sam 12:14) Even after David’s sin was forgiven, he had to undergo expiation (purgation, in this life).

This is a very interesting subject and I think one would do justice to oneself to contemplate this. We should stop sparring and think deeply. This is not a contest.

After all, are we not here to learn?

I want to thank the Protestants and Fundamentalists who have contributed to my formation as they have challenged me and forced me to research and study.

 

[SyCarl]

Some say God does not demand expiation after forgiving sins. What about David? When he repented, Nathan told him: “The Lord, on his part, has forgiven you; you shall not die but since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you (Bathsheba) must surely die” (2 Sam 12:14) Even after David’s sin was forgiven, he had to undergo expiation (purgation, in this life).

There is a difference between discipline in this life and punishment in purgatory. Hebrews 12 clearly indicates that God disciplines us as a corrective measure. However after death there is no purpose for discipline because we have no further opportunity to correct our ways.

Catholic teaching is clearly that purgatory is punishment. The Council of Trent stated:

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

This seems to contradict God’s word in Scripture.

And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, “THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,” He then says, “AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE.”
(Hebrews 10:15-17 NASB)

But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. “BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”
(Romans 4:5-8 NASB)

If there is temporal punishment for sins after death, how can it be said that God does not remember our lawless deeds and that our sin will not be taken into account? If God has forgotten our sins, how can it be said He punishes for them after death.

Modern Catholics seem to equate purgatory as a final cleansing of sin as nothing unclean can enter Heaven. However such a cleansing does not require punishment any more than our initial cleansing on regeneration, or in baptism depending on your view, involved punishment.

I would agree that all vestiges of sin will be removed before we enter Heaven, put that is not what purgatory is. Trent says quite clearly that it is punishment, not cleansing.

 

[rolltidefan]

Reading all your posts I am very concerned about you Peter, Cinette on the other hand is doing a fine job defending the Church, which she clearly loves from false accusations as is her duty as a Catholic, you should try it some time instead of just making sycophantic comments in favour those who have set themselves up in opposition to Christ’s Church.

Okay…I wasn’t going to say anything. Mostly reading up to this point. No, I think you ALL are missing the point that Peter is making. He is not justifing anything (especially what one of us protestants would say), he is saying there is a more CHRISTIAN way in which these comments can be made. Which I stand up applaud Peter for. I have read many of his threads and he has stood up very much for the Catholic belief, but just in a way that I as a protestant can see that he is speaking in love. You will win more over with love than what is goign on here. I can tell you that and that goes for both sides. And I don’t think it is very fair to just say that Ginger has said things against the Catholic church. There have been some nasty things said about the protestant also. So that respect works both ways. However, I think both sides are wrong for this. Not just one. THANK YOU Peter for standing up as a true Christian!

 

[benedictus2]

Gal 3:22 But the Scripture has captured everything by means of sin’s net, so that what was promised by the faithfulness of the Messiah might be granted to those who believe.

The Scriptures or the law is intended to condemn everyone, because no one can live up to it perfectly. So there is only one way to be saved - and that is thru Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.

But, while everyone has opportunity to accept Christ Jesus, the gift is only given to those who believe.

Romans 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,

Over and over again Jesus tells his disciples some things are hidden from those who do not believe.

2 Cor 4:
3 if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not

Also, having perfect knowledge about all things concerning God is not a requirement to salvation.

But you have just proven my point that the Bible is not plain. That was what I was trying to explain to you. If the Bible is PLAIN because it is meant for ALL it will be PLAIN FOR ALL. Every line of scripture above just supports my contention that it is not plain.

You have gone about the circuitous way but all the above just brings up to square 1. My original point.

Do I have to repeat myself. All true Christians share the same basic beliefs that are contained in the Holy Scriptures and summarized in the Apostle’s Creed. Anyone who does not believe these basic doctrines is christian in name only.

I tell you what, a lot of evangelicals will be truly offended by that statement.

It’s in the Scriptures! We are warned not to believe every spirit as even satan masquerades as an angel of light, but to test the Spirits so as not to be deceived.

That does not even begin to answer my question. You test the spirit how?
Put it this way, a lot of Christians believe divorce is okay. I am sure they have followed that “testing” of the spirit. So how did they get it so wrong when it is plain in the Gospels that Jesus said it is not allowed.
Or contraception for example. Every Christian denomination bar the Catholic Church think this is permissible. Yet until the 1930s every Christian Church agreed it is a sin. Surely, all those who who decided to allow contraception have “tested” the spirit.

So what is the guideline for testing the spirit. How do you test the spirit.

The Bible covers that too. 2 Ti 4:3

The Bible is true for those who love the Lord. For those who reject God…Romans 1

But you did not answer my point again. The example I mentioned were actually basing their belief in the Bible. These people do not think they are rejecting God. They actually do believe they are following God.

 

[benedictus2]

I would agree that all vestiges of sin will be removed before we enter Heaven, put that is not what purgatory is. Trent says quite clearly that it is punishment, not cleansing.

It is a cleansing. That is why we call it purgatory. Look up the word purge, purgate and you will get the gist. But it will involve pain. But we will choose it.

Even C.S. Lewis believes in it:

He writes;
"Our souls demand purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, “It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy.” Should we not reply “With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned fist”. “It may hurt, your know” —“Even so sir”.

 

[benedictus2]

Peter,

Respectfully I have to say I think you’re a little off-base here. I’ve read through this entire thread and Cinette certainly hasn’t been engaging in any “protestant bashing” or a “holy war”…Go back and read over her posts and the posts that she has replied to (particularly the ones that you said concerned you). She’s done an excellent job of standing up for the faith and has tried to be more understanding and charitable than I think I might be able to be had I been in her place in this discussion lol.

And also, to be fair, you did start this my bringing up your “concerns”…She was just defending herself and asking for clarification on what you meant exactly by that. Surely you must agree that that’s a fair request?

TOTALLY AGREE!!:tiphat:

 

[benedictus2]

Then you have the Fundamentalists who are totally unreasonable, propagate lies, have closed minds and so on… Everybody knows that. Most times you cannot debate with them. Some, of course, do reason and acknowledge truth.

And totally irrational and illogical as well.

I sometimes wonder whether rationality is something you give up when you become protestant.

And that is not just my observation either. Karl Keating said somethiing similar.

You have to be selective and know the difference.

You confuse me Peter. I don’t know if you are black or white or grey! I just don’t know:shrug:

I would not let him worry you. He has a certain style and he wishes everyone should be like him. But hey, if he was made like that (all nicey-nicey) that is fine.

To expect every one to be the same is ridiculous.

And it is not about charity either.

 

[llblarosa]

A Bit Off Topic But Needed Clarification

Re: My comments about the Bible.

Ginger, I did not say the NT came from the Latin Vulgate. I said the NT in the KJV was translated from it. Different point.

Also, the Jews did use the Greek Septuagint and the apostles quoted from it, which contained the deuterocanonical books. (Moreover, all of the apostles would have been aware of the Septuagint’s use in the temple). They only quit using them in the second century. Their motivation? Denial of the Messiah, of course. Do you share that motivation of theirs as well?

Re: The Books I Mentioned Earlier

Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic is by David Currie.

Upon This Rock is by Stephen Ray.

By What Authortiy is by Mark Shea.

In case you were interested.

Lisa

 

[llblarosa]

Also, two Popes have already declared the vugate translation has imperfections. They have revised it.

Here is an excerpt of their decision:
“In realizing this revision, the old text of the Vulgate edition was taken into consideration word for word, namely, whenever the original texts are accurately rendered, such as they are found in modern critical editions; however the text was prudently improved, whenever it departs from them or interprets them less correctly.”

The complete text can be read at
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JPTHESAU.HTM
Apostolic Constitution SCRIPTURARUM THESAURUS
Pope John Paul II

Ginger:

I read the text. The additions were for clarity and understanding by the laity only. This happens all the time. It certainly happened when the Bible was translated into English. Is that an imperfection?

What Bible do you use?

Lisa

 

[Peter_J]

You confuse me Peter.

You’re confused by me? Okay, whatever.

Blessings,

 

[Peter_J]

I think I need to add a little clarification, because it may appear that I was singling out Cinette and picking on her. That wasn’t my intention.

What you have to understand is that I don’t read every single post of every single thread – who could? So it’s certainly possible that there have been posts on this thread that were more unfairly “anti-Protestant” than Cinette’s posts. I don’t know if there are or not, and I don’t really care.

I read Cinette’s posts because in the past I have found her to be a good defender of Catholicism, both zealous and reasonable. I was saddened by the “Protestant-bashing” (or what I saw as “Protestant-bashing”) not because it’s unusual (anyone who’s familiar with the internet should know that Protestant-bashing and Catholic-bashing are both commonplace), but because it struck me as a huge change from the non-polemical style of arguing that I had come to expect from Cinette.

I’ve probably go on to long already. Cinette, my apologies if I seemed to be singling you out unfairly. As I said, that was not my intention.

 

[Cinette]

You’re confused by me? Okay, whatever.

Blessings,

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!

 

[Cinette]

I think I need to add a little clarification, because it may appear that I was singling out Cinette and picking on her. That wasn’t my intention.

What you have to understand is that I don’t read every single post of every single thread – who could? So it’s certainly possible that there have been posts on this thread that were more unfairly “anti-Protestant” than Cinette’s posts. I don’t know if there are or not, and I don’t really care.

I read Cinette’s posts because in the past I have found her to be a good defender of Catholicism, both zealous and reasonable. I was saddened by the “Protestant-bashing” (or what I saw as “Protestant-bashing”) not because it’s unusual (anyone who’s familiar with the internet should know that Protestant-bashing and Catholic-bashing are both commonplace), but because it struck me as a huge change from the non-polemical style of arguing that I had come to expect from Cinette.

I’ve probably go on to long already. Cinette, my apologies if I seemed to be singling you out unfairly. As I said, that was not my intention.

Peter - please show me one posting of mine that can be categorized as “Protestant bashing”.

I do get frustrated when something has been explained a number of times by different posters and the response is always the same argument. For example it was explained that it is our belief that if the penitent is not remorseful he/she will not be forgiven because, although the Priest (who cannot see into one’s heart) has given Absolution, only God knows the heart of everyone - He knows if you are not sorry. It was explained that Jesus instituted the sacrament of Confession “Whose sins you shall forgive…” We were told that it was only for the lifespan of the Apostles. Well, I ask you!!! This is ridiculous and I am not afraid to say so. Bashing? Hardly!

We present our belief - we explain why. We do not expect the other party to then adopt our beliefs (although that would be nice). The Protestant has a different interpretation. OK, so that is his/her interpretation and let it be. We have responded and let them know our beliefs.

Are we not here to share and learn?

Then, like a broken record, we are presented with the same argument! Do you know the song “There’s a hole in my bucket?”

So Peter, if you can show me a posting where I have been rude and insulting and “bashing” then I shall apologize. I do try to drive my point when the other party appears not to take in my explanation.

 

[Ginger2]

But you have just proven my point that the Bible is not plain.

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.

It is plainly stated that Jesus rose in the flesh, yet JW’s deny it because “it is impossible”.

The Bible also says it is God who gives us understanding of the Scriptures and hides understanding.

The JW’s have an explanation for nearly every verse in the Bible. Ask them a question, they’ll open their little answer book and give an answer that makes sense to the human mind.

If they turned to God for guidance and wisdom, God would open their minds to understanding. Maybe a little at a time and maybe all at once as He did Paul.

Instead, God has allowed them freewill “so that ‘they may see clearly but not perceive, and they may hear clearly but not understand, otherwise they might turn around and be forgiven.’” (Mark 4:12 )

But to us who are saved…

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.

Ginger2:

All true Christians share the same basic beliefs that are contained in the Holy Scriptures and summarized in the Apostle’s Creed. Anyone who does not believe these basic doctrines is christian in name only.

… a lot of evangelicals will be truly offended by that statement.

 

[Cinette]

For Ginger -

I would like you to please respond to my question in Post #396 - 62 posts have been made since I posed my question and you still choose to ignore my request for your response.

Why?

 

[Ginger2]

For Ginger -

I would like you to please respond to my question in Post #396 - 62 posts have been made since I posed my question and you still choose to ignore my request for your response.

Why?

Cinette,

I’ve decided not to discourse with you any longer. It doesn’t seem profitable for either of us.

But i will show you 2 posts that I consider “bashing”

post #93
"Cinette:

There are Protestants who come onto these forums with a genuine desire to understand Catholics. ……

Then there are the predators - agents of the evil one - with closed minds and one objective and that is to injure, condemn and spar. ……they are thinking of what next insult to send our way. ….they are consumed with hatred.

Post # 123

Ginger2:

You asked for a “simple yes or no”.

I was raised Catholic.

A simple yes or no, not a lie…:nope: :tsktsk: