Protestants, can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?

[Peter_J]

^^ It’s possible that when Lily said “your own so-often used train of logic”, she meant Protestants in general rather than you personally.

 

[LilyM]

Your post doesn’t even sound coherent anymore

The first part makes no sense at all, and the quote above seems to suggest you think all knowledge of of everything can be found in Scriptures.

What in the world are you talking about?

It can’t be THAT hard to keep up with my thought processes, can it really? Most other posters seem to have no problems with what I write at all.

Firstly you asked who all these other Messiahs were. I named one for you right off the top of my head - John the Baptist.

Secondly, you mention that the Pharisees sent their servants out to spy on Jesus, as if that means they were eager to personally see Him. So WHY did they send spies if they wanted personally to see Him, hear Him, or talk to Him? It makes no sense. The fact that they sent out spies suggests that the Pharisees in fact were NOT especially interested in seeing or hearing Jesus for themselves.

Fact is you have been frequently demanding, throughout this thread and others, ‘where in scripture does it say …’ one thing or another. And arguing over the wording of scripture passages when they ARE quoted to you.

You are one of those basically refuses to acknowledge anything that isn’t written in scripture. Or you do a very good impersonation of someone who does.

I stand by that and will go back and quote examples if you like.

 

[LilyM]

Also, ***Show me the verse that says ***the people asked the priests to forgive/absolve their sins when they brought their offerings.

Show me one time an Apostles said those words as a declaration that they had power to forgive as God forgives.

There’s just two from the last couple of pages of this thread, let alone others. I certainly meant that you personally are mighty close to if not actually a sola scripturist.

 

[Peter_J]

I certainly meant that you personally are mighty close to if not actually a sola scripturist.

I may be a little confused, but I’ve been assuming right alone that Ginger holds to Sola Scriptura.

 

[Ginger2]

Firstly you asked who all these other Messiahs were. I named one for you right off the top of my head - John the Baptist.

Wrong. I said: “As for these other 6 false prophets you claim out of the blue…if they existed, they obviously were no concern to the pharisees and scribes as Jesus is the one who was making them look bad and gaining more followers then John the Baptist.”

John never claimed to be the Messiah.

Secondly, you mention that the Pharisees sent their servants out to spy on Jesus, as if that means they were eager to personally see Him. …The fact that they sent out spies suggests that the Pharisees in fact were NOT especially interested in seeing or hearing Jesus for themselves.

Wrong again. I said, "The pharisees themselves] often went to search for him to question him personally] and try to trick him. The pharisees and scribes were very interested in Jesus -interest enough to plot to kill him!

Jo 12:19 the pharisees said “the whole world has gone after Jesus”

Thank you for clarifying your post so I could clear up these misunderstandings.

 

[Ginger2]

I may be a little confused, but I’ve been assuming right alone that Ginger holds to Sola Scriptura.

I do not hold to the definition of SS as given by Catholics.
I had never even heard of Sola Scriptura until after becoming a Protestant - and then the first I heard was from Catholics claiming that is what I believe.

I had to research SS to find out what they were talking about and discovered there is no such doctrine among Protestants. At least not in the sense claimed by Catholics.

Catholics use a definition that I agree is false doctrine. I have never met a Protestant who believes that doctrine according to the Catholic definition.

In fact, it appears to me that Protestants began trying to define SS as a way to explain they don’t agree with the doctrine as defined by Catholics, either!

In a way I find it rather amusing.

 

[Peter_J]

I had to research SS to find out what they were talking about and discovered there is no such doctrine among Protestants. At least not in the sense claimed by Catholics.

Fair enough. As some of the Protestant posters here like to say, Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean Solo Scriptura.

On the other hand, I think some Protestants go too far the other way: try to make Sola Scriptura out to just mean Sufficiency of Scripture (which, btw, some of us Catholics believe in).

 

[celticcrusader]

My new favorite saying, “If you believe in the authority of the new testement, then you believe in the auhtority of the Catholic Church.” I think that sums up the whole discussion, don’t you?

 

[guanophore]

First, my comment is directed toward the Old Testament, as we agree on the books of the New Testament.

However, I did not specify this as in the past Catholics have insisted the original language of NT was Aramaic and none of the original manuscripts still exist - only copies in Greek.

Second, no one ever questioned that the NT was first written in Aramaic until recent times. I was taught this in Catechism.

Also, my Catholic Bible says all the NT books were written well before the end of the first century, but recently I have Catholics telling me they weren’t.

*If you guys are going to keep changing the criteria and facts, how am I to carry on any sort of productive dialog?

Maybe you should fill me in on the latest beliefs so that we can debate and discuss starting at the same point.

The OT was written first in Hebrew and only copies are found in Greek, correct?

Do you agree the New Testament was written originally in Aramaic - the language spoken at that time by the Jews? Or some other language?

If you think it was originally written in Greek, may I ask whether you believe these Greek manuscripts are the originals or exact copies? I ask this because I have been told by Catholics we don’t know what the originals say because the originals don’t exist.

*PeterJ, I think you are trying to discuss this reasonably, but it is very difficult for me to find common ground when the criteria continually changes.

Whatever you claim, I will consider. Then after I verify the validity of your claim or the inaccuracy, I will come back to discuss why I a agree or disagree with what you have said.

But somewhere along the way we have to agree on at least a few specifics. I will concede to your claim as to what the original language of the NT was. But not the OT.

Also, I would ask you not to throw something in my face that I conceded on in the past just because I am willing to concede to new “facts” today. Afterall, I am not the one changing the criteria, I am only conceding to the changes claimed by you.

Take a breath, Ginger2, you are sounding frustrated. All of these are very good questions and points, but I think they are off topic in this thread. I recommend that you post them in the Sacred Scripture section. What was it about these points you make here that relates to priests forgiving sins?

 

[Peter_J]

My new favorite saying, “If you believe in the authority of the new testement, then you believe in the auhtority of the Catholic Church.” I think that sums up the whole discussion, don’t you?

I find that people (not just Protestants but other people as well, including Catholics) tend not to respond too well to the “because I say so” form of argument.

 

[Ginger2]

Take a breath, Ginger2, you are sounding frustrated. All of these are very good questions and points, but I think they are off topic in this thread. I recommend that you post them in the Sacred Scripture section. What was it about these points you make here that relates to priests forgiving sins?

Good point. Please tell the Catholics who keep asking me off topic questions.

 

[celticcrusader]

I find that people (not just Protestants but other people as well, including Catholics) tend not to respond too well to the “because I say so” form of argument.

after 650 replies the best answer that will come out of this is , we can agree to disagree. if you take two people, 1American & 1 German and you try to discuss who won WWII and the German had in his mind they did not lose and that was it. and you tried to show him through history he was wrong and he had his own interpertation he clung to, proving he was right and it skewed his reasoning how can you argue with him? the best you can do is agree to disagree.It may seem that I say “I say so” but I mean, I say because Holy Mother Church says so! I guess we should be more clear.

 

[ac_claire]

I find that people (not just Protestants but other people as well, including Catholics) tend not to respond too well to the “because I say so” form of argument.

But Catholics do believe what we believe because “the Church says so.” I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God because the Church says so; I believe the Scriptures are inspired because the Church says so. And on and on. Better to trust Christ’s own Church than my own fallible understanding.

 

[ac_claire]

I don’t claim to know for certain what John 20:23 means. I would only be guessing based on what I know about other Scriptures.

I believe whatever God says. When and if God feels I need a clear and concise understanding of the particular Scripture, He will provide such understanding at just the right time.

For the time being, what I do know is that this Scripture must be consistent with the rest of the Scriptures and must not contradict.

Sometimes contradictions aren’t obvious. If any Scripture passages seem to contradict eachother then the meanings of each of those passages must be clear, right? Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to judge whether they agree or contradict. But the actual meaning of certain scriptures is also not always clear, either, judging by the many, many different interpretations floating around. Take John 6 for example. So if this is indeed your standard for Scripture interpretation-- that " Scripture must be consistent with the rest of the Scriptures and must not contradict"-- then it seems you’re still relying on your own understanding to decide what constitues a biblical agreement or contradiction.

That’s the part I would have trouble with. Our human understanding isn’t perfect.

 

[Ginger2]

But Catholics do believe what we believe because “the Church says so.” I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God because the Church says so; I believe the Scriptures are inspired because the Church says so. And on and on. Better to trust Christ’s own Church than my own fallible understanding.

Herein lies the main difference between Catholics and Protestants:

Catholics believe because Church Tradition tells them so

Protestants believe because God Himself has told us in His affirmed and inerrant written Word - the Holy Scriptures.

 

[ac_claire]

Herein lies the main difference between Catholics and Protestants:

Catholics believe because Church Tradition tells them so

The main difference between Catholics and all Protestants is that Protestants reject the authority of the Church.

Protestants believe because God Himself has told us in His affirmed and inerrant written Word - the Holy Scriptures.

…the same Sacred Scriptures which tell us the Jesus established a Church for His followers. But we don’t believe anything because Church Tradition alone tells us so. It’s because the Church tells us so, which is Sacred Tradition and Scripture. You can’t have one of these things without the other, it was never meant to be that way.

When you say God Himself tells you something in scripture, do you mean that you hear the voice of God explaining the correct meaning to you? Or that Christ actually appears to make things clear…? You’re still talking about it coming down to your own understanding of what you’re reading.

Example: someone else who thinks they’re being guided by the Holy Spirit can read John 6 and take Jesus at his word there- literally. Are they not really being guided by the Holy Spirit if they are led to that conclusion and you, reading the same passage, are led to a different conclusion?

 

[guanophore]

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?

I know it it tempting to try to be practical, LilyM, but let’s try to keep this on topic. Those issues belong on another thread.

 

[guanophore]

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?

There were more than 13 Apostles, and Paul was not considered one of the 12. If God did not want Peter to choose a successor, do you think he was too weak or disinterested to stop Peter from making a mistake? It seems clear that God was able to convince Peter that Gentiles were to be baptized into the church.

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

 

[Ginger2]

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

We got on this topic because the authority to forgive sins is based on apostolic succession - which I did not bring up, but responded to.

 

[Peter_J]

Herein lies the main difference between Catholics and Protestants:

Catholics believe because Church Tradition tells them so

Protestants believe because God Himself has told us in His affirmed and inerrant written Word - the Holy Scriptures.

But the important thing to keep in mind is that the Church is not monolithic.

For example, we regard St. Augustine as a church father, yes? But that doesn’t mean that if St. Augustine says Y is true, we all respond with “Yes, St. Augustine said Y, so Y is Church Tradition, so we’ll all believe Y.”