Protestants, can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?

[Ginger2]

Ginger, be honest. It even says in scripture that scripture can be twisted an manipulated.

That’s exactly what I have been saying!!! The question is who twists them?

2Cr 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

It means some people will twist the Scriptures and there is nothing you can do to help them understand because God has hidden understanding from those who are condemned.

Likewise, only God can and does open a mind and heart to understanding.

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.

Of course they can be understood outside of Apostolic teaching!

Absolutely!

 

[celticcrusader]

I’m coming in late but the answer to this question is YES, a Catholic priest can forgive sins. In other words… if someone trespasses against him… the Word of God says he MUST forgive these trespasses otherwise his sins will not be forgiven.

Now, can a Catholic priest forgive sins that I have committed? Not according to the Word of God. How exactly will a priest know of my sins if I confess my sins unto the Lord as it clearly states in Psalms 32:5, Ezra 10:11, 1 John 1:9? When I pray, I make my confession just like Daniel did.

Dan 9:4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

Dan 9:5 We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments:

Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

Ezr 10:10 And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel.

Ezr 10:11 Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

I see you use OT scripture to prove your point. so I guess you are under the OT laws. do you eat ham sandwiches?

 

[believers]

I see you use OT scripture to prove your point. so I guess you are under the OT laws. do you eat ham sandwiches?

Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

 

[celticcrusader]

Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

OK read post # 678

 

[believers]

OK read post # 678

Yes, I have power to forgive sins.

Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Mar 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Eph 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.

 

[Ginger2]

I see you use OT scripture to prove your point.

I didn’t know 1 John was OT.

 

[celticcrusader]

I didn’t know 1 John was OT.

Oppps I didn’t notice the last one.

 

[guanophore]

I’m coming in late

It is ok, believers. Your misunderstanding of the Apostolic Teaching is why we are here! You are welcome always.

but the answer to this question is YES, a Catholic priest can forgive sins. In other words… if someone trespasses against him… the Word of God says he MUST forgive these trespasses otherwise his sins will not be forgiven.

Now, can a Catholic priest forgive sins that I have committed? Not according to the Word of God.

Perhaps you will explain Jesus meant when 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” John 20:21-23

He did not breathe on all His disciples, though it is true he told us all we need to forgive. So what was given to the Church that was not given to individual members of it?

How exactly will a priest know of my sins if I confess my sins unto the Lord as it clearly states in Psalms 32:5, Ezra 10:11, 1 John 1:9? When I pray, I make my confession just like Daniel did.

You are right on there, believers. It is obvious that people were confessing their sins, because the gift was not to read minds.

I am also curious what you think this verse means:

James 5:16
6 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed.

The Apostles taught that the sacrament of reconciliation is one of healing, and that the healing happens during the confession and prayer. This is consistent with all the scriptures you posted above, which verify that unconfessed sin makes people sick.

Dan 9:4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

Do you imagine that these faithful Jews did not also participate in the confession ritual that God had commanded.

Lev 5:5-6
5 When you realize your guilt in any of these, you shall confess the sin that you have committed. 6 And you shall bring to the LORD, as your penalty for the sin that you have committed, a female from the flock, a sheep or a goat, as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement on your behalf for your sin.

Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

Let’s see how this was done, shall we?

Matt 3:5-6
5 Then the people of Jerusalem and all Judea were going out to him, and all the region along the Jordan, 6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

How was it known that they were confessing, if it was silent?

Acts 19:18-19
18 Also many of those who became believers confessed and disclosed their practices. 19 A number of those who practiced magic collected their books and burned them publicly;

These are examples of public confession, which was the norm in the Church at the time.

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

I think the only difference there is in the way we understand this verse is that Catholics accept the Apostolic Teaching that the priest acts in the person of Christ. It is to Jesus that confession is made. The priest forgives in the name of Jesus, and the Church.

Can you think of any biblical example where sins were retained by an Apostle?

 

[guanophore]

That’s exactly what I have been saying!!! The question is who twists them?

2Cr 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

It means some people will twist the Scriptures and there is nothing you can do to help them understand because God has hidden understanding from those who are condemned.

I think you are misunderstanding the Apostolic Teaching in this matter, Ginger2. There is a lot we can do to help them understand, bringing them appropriate teaching, preaching, and shepherding. Not the least of which is to pray for them. you already gave this example of someone you knew that you helped by bringing the Apostolic understanding of the Scriptures,and she was able to understand it.

Absolutely!

And each generation that continues to depart from the Apostolic teaching gets further and further from the Church that Jesus founded, until we have thousands of "denominations’ most of them lacking agreeemetn with one another.

Departing from the Apostolic Source is what creates and perpetuates these division.

 

[Bill_Pick]

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.

GINGER,WHAT ABOUT BIBLE ALONE or have people said to "if its not in the bible i will not believe

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Yes, I have power to forgive sins.

Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Mar 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Eph 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.

What power do you have to forgive sin? If you are not a Catholic priest, you cannot forgive sin. That power is given to the Catholic priest from Jesus Christ.

 

[ac_claire]

And each generation that continues to depart from the Apostolic teaching gets further and further from the Church that Jesus founded, until we have thousands of "denominations’ most of them lacking agreeemetn with one another.

Departing from the Apostolic Source is what creates and perpetuates these division.

Indeed. The Bible can be interpreted in all kinds of different ways and there is no way to authoritatively know which interpretations are correct and which are erroneous if you reject Apostolic teaching (as guanophore put it) through the Church.

Ginger, the measuring stick I’ve heard you speak of before-- that the correct interpretation is one that does not contradict the rest of scripture because Scripture doesn’t contradict itself-- is faulty too. Because you may see something that is clearly a contradiction of other parts of Scripture, but someone else who reads those same passages may completely disagree. If interpretations of Scripture differ so widely then obviously the opinions on what is or isn’t a contradiction will also not be uniform across the board. If you reject the teaching authority of the Church then your understanding of the Bible will always, always come down to a private interpretation, which is of course not infallible.

 

[benedictus2]

The Trinity was first brought up here:

I did not bring it up. I only responded to those who used it as an example trying to prove Scriptures are not clear and cannot be understood without the help of the RC.

WHO BROUGHT IT UP AND WHEN IS IMMATERIAL. This is just another one of your derailing tactics. To Cinette’s post you responded that the Trinity was plain from the Bible. It is your reply that shifted the topic to whether the Bible is plain and in this instance as regards the Trinity.

Your 1st question was, “Do you think an average believer would conclude that they are not two separate Gods in the same way that a father is separate from his son?”

I responded with the example of the woman who didn’t believe Jesus was God incarnate. She thought Jesus was just “a good man.”

My post 505 which you quoted above is my reply to SyCarl and not the original question. That was my response to him when he cited Hilary.

Here again is my recap from post 492

benedictus2:

You1: The Tritnity is Plain from the Bible
Me1: Trinity not Plain from the Bible or else there will be no anti-Trinitarian heresies.

You2: Plain only to those who are redeemed or something like that.
Me2: If you start making exceptions like “only to those who are redeemed” then it is no longer plain. Plain means plain so has to be plain to ALL.

You3: Some books are not plain to all like medical and mechanical books which are only plain to doctors andmechanics.
Me3: But the Bible is not a specialist book but a book for All because Christ died for All so must be plain to All.

My point here is if the medical and mechanical books are written for doctors and mechanics such that doctors and mechanics understand them plainly. the Bible was written for All becuase this is supposed to be everyones means of coming to learn about salvation since Christ died for all.

You4: Cite passages showing that Bible is plain only to those who are redeemed again.
Me4: Ergo. You have just proven my point from Me1. Get it? By going back to this passages you have just shown that the Bible is not plain. You are now saying that the Bible is meant only for a few.

ALL YOU ARE DOING WITH THIS POST IS ADDING MORE PASSAGES THAT KEEP SUPPORTING MY POINT THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT PLAIN.

That is the point we are arguing about, where or not the Bible is plain. You have not given any rational/logical refutation of my point. The question is not scriptural. It is a logical question because your proposition was an extra-bibilical statement. On the contrary, you have supplied scriptural passages that supported my point.

You were almost on the mark when you replied with the medical and mechanical books.

You replied that the Bible is plain to believers and that those who came up with the Heresies were not believers. If that is the case, protestants are plainly heretics because they believe doctrines which are contrary to the bible so therefore protestants are not believers because they are heretics. So therefore the Bible is not plain to them.

And your example about this woman accepting the divinity of Christ still does not address the issue of the plainness of the Bible because as I have said before it was YOUR EXPLANATION she FINALLY GOT.

But, all this still does not address my simple yes or no question on the plainness of the Bible.

So once again, to go back to your original statement that THE TRINITY IS PLAIN FROM THE BIBLE, since you gave this woman as an example, if you had given her the Bible without explaning anything, would she have been able to come up with the doctrine of the Trinity as it is stated Three Persons in One God, and not three or two separates Gods?

What is so hard to understand about that?

Every reply you’ve posted has only confirmed my point that the Bible is NOT PLAIN.

Some parts are plain but others are not, so as a whole it is not plain.

 

[guanophore]

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.

While you are being amused by the heretical doctrine of sola scriptura, Jesus says:

Matt 16:18-20
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

 

[guanophore]

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

No,Ginger2, you are responsible for your own behavior, both on this forum, and before God. If others try to distract you, it is your duty to resist.

 

[guanophore]

What explanation? No one has all the answers.

You are wrong, Ginger2. Jesus does have all the answers,and He gives them to those who seek Him.

What you are admitting here is that you don’t know the answers to the questions that have been posted, because they have not been revealed to you.

Even the Catholic Church leaves interpretation of Scripture that isn’t dogmatically define up to the individual. In that case they follow basically the same rule as Protestants.

No, Ginger2. We do not interpret any scripture contrary to the Apostolic Teaching, such as Protestants do.

As long as it doesn't contradict Bible if it's a Protestant/Tradition if it's a Catholic.

No, Ginger. The Bible is a Catholic product. When Protesants interpret it apart from the Apostolic Tradition, they are prone to err.

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.

This is the absolute best testimony to the error of SS I have read in a long time!

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.

What you don’t seem to realize, Ginger2, is that God has been providing this to you through the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years!

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.

That is very Catholic of you to say!

 

[guanophore]

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.

Sorry Ginger2, but they were worried John was the messiah. That is why they sent messengers to ask him if he was. Whether he claimed to be or not is irrelevant. He was a great concern to the scribes and Pharisees, as is evident by the fact that they could not identify to Jesus “from whence came the baptism of John”?

There were many who were thought to be the messiah, beginning with the Maccabeans, right up and through Barabbas.

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!

They also sent messengers to john, but did not go themselves. T
he point i s that they wished to be removed from both of them, just in case.

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.

I sure wish your misunderstandings had been cleared up, Ginger2, but I fear this is not the case.

 

[ufamtobie]

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

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

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

Ginger,

No matter how you may look at it, a “prophet or a priest” David went to a man of God for the forgiveness of his sins.

Ufamtobie

 

[Ginger2]

GINGER,WHAT ABOUT BIBLE ALONE or have people said to "if its not in the bible i will not believe

This question comes up all the time.

The Bible does not claim to contain all knowledge.

This is my philosophy:

If it’s not in the Bible, I am not required to believe it.
If it is in the Bible, I am bound to believe it.
If it contradicts the Bible I am bound to reject it.

 

[Ginger2]

WHO BROUGHT IT UP AND WHEN IS IMMATERIAL. This is just another one of your derailing tactics. To Cinette’s post **you responded **that the Trinity was plain from the Bible. It is your reply that shifted the topic to whether the Bible is plain and in this instance as regards the Trinity.

Yes, I responded to Cinette’s post and somehow that is a “derailing tactic”?