Protestants, can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?

[benedictus2]

If they already had the Holy Spirit, then why did Jesus say the following?
Acts 1:6-8 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

Scripture interprets Scripture…that is my interpretation…what is yours?

As I have said before, this coming of the Holy Spirit to give them the power to witness.

I think Guanophore has already clearly explained the difference.

Consider this: Jesus is God so he posses God’s Spirit in Him right? Yet, when he was baptized, The Father sent down the Holy Spirit on Him. Does that mean that before that event He did not posses the Holy Spirit?

Scripture interprets Scripture only to AN EXTENT. There is a lot in scripture that can be more fully understood in light of other writings and customs of the time.

As you may have noted, I did interpret this with scripture by referring it to Genesis and Ezekiel. A lot of protestants interpret it the same.

Also, you completely overlooked the point I raised. When God utters the Word, it happens.

God said let there be light and there was light. Jesus said Epathat - be opened- and the deaf man heared and he was able to speak.

In John 20:23 He breathes on them and says receive the Holy Spirit. And it was.

So there you are. Scripture interpreting scripture.

You cannot argue against that because that is the Gospel clear and plain.

 

[benedictus2]

I might add that receiving power is key, we all are powerless until we receive the Holy Spirit, at least when it comes to the things of God. The Apostles received the power of the spirit to speak in tongues and signs and wonders; something we do not have have, but we have the power to be led to all truth after being saved. I don’t think Jesus breathing was futile, but I believe He was showing or demonstrating that which was to occur as it did 8 days later.
**Just like Romans 8 where the word glorified is used, it is written as though it already happened because it it such a sure thing…**Greeks often used the past tense for something that had not happened, but because it was so certain to happen they emphasized this by putting in the past tense.

No,** there was nothing in the text that indicates that it is a pledge.** **The wording is very clear. He breathes on them to impart them His spirit. **You, I believe, are even going against protestant interpretation to avoid having to acknowledge that God gave these men the power to forgive sins.

Now you really are stretching thing way too far with Rom 8 and the one word glorified which you have taken so completely out of context. Your reasoning to support your view point is becoming even more ridiculous by the minute.

That passage is extremely clear. Did you even read properly my post about the references to Genesis and Ezekiel?

 

[Cinette]

As I have said before, this coming of the Holy Spirit to give them the power to witness.

I think Guanophore has already clearly explained the difference.

Consider this:** **Jesus is God so he posses God’s Spirit in Him right? Yet, when he was baptized, The Father sent down the Holy Spirit on Him. Does that mean that before that event He did not posses the Holy Spiri****t?/SIZE]

Scripture interprets Scripture only to AN EXTENT. There is a lot in scripture that can be more fully understood in light of other writings and customs of the time.

As you may have noted, I did interpret this with scripture by referring it to Genesis and Ezekiel. A lot of protestants interpret it the same.

Also, you completely overlooked the point I raised. When God utters the Word, it happens.

God said let there be light and there was light. Jesus said Epathat - be opened- and the deaf man heared and he was able to speak.

In John 20:23 He breathes on them and says receive the Holy Spirit. And it was.

So there you are. Scripture interpreting scripture.

You cannot argue against that because that is the Gospel clear and plain.

very good post - thank you Benedictus.

 

[NonCatholic]

As I have said before, this coming of the Holy Spirit to give them the power to witness.

I think Guanophore has already clearly explained the difference.

Consider this: Jesus is God so he posses God’s Spirit in Him right? Yet, when he was baptized, The Father sent down the Holy Spirit on Him. Does that mean that before that event He did not posses the Holy Spirit?

Scripture interprets Scripture only to AN EXTENT. There is a lot in scripture that can be more fully understood in light of other writings and customs of the time.

As you may have noted, I did interpret this with scripture by referring it to Genesis and Ezekiel. A lot of protestants interpret it the same.

Also, you completely overlooked the point I raised. When God utters the Word, it happens.

God said let there be light and there was light. Jesus said Epathat - be opened- and the deaf man heared and he was able to speak.

In John 20:23 He breathes on them and says receive the Holy Spirit. And it was.

So there you are. Scripture interpreting scripture.

You cannot argue against that because that is the Gospel clear and plain.

You are adding to Scripture; it doesn’t say “And it was” the day of Pentecost has not happened yet…has it? How does one receive the Holy Spirit twice? And how? and why? Makes no sense; doesn’t happen.

Why God says something is going to happen; it does…I agree, the timing I disagree. Just as Romans 8:29 uses “glorified”, it hasn’t happened, but is so definitive as written as though it has already happened.

 

[NonCatholic]

No,** there was nothing in the text that indicates that it is a pledge.** **The wording is very clear. He breathes on them to impart them His spirit. **You, I believe, are even going against protestant interpretation to avoid having to acknowledge that God gave these men the power to forgive sins.

To signify imparting the Holy Spirit to come, which did 8 days later. You do not receive the Holy Spirit twice…do you?

 

[celticcrusader]

Happy New Year to everyone! I found a great artical on the Sacrament of Confession or Pennance however you would like to call it] it covers Bible history, Tradition, early councils,early church fathers, other churches eg: greek orthodox , church of england and others. I think everyone should read this and then continue the discussion my opinion], it is a bit of a read with a lot to digest But I think it really lays to rest the question. what do you think? here is the site. newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

 

[benedictus2]

You are adding to Scripture; it doesn’t say “And it was” the day of Pentecost has not happened yet…has it? How does one receive the Holy Spirit twice? And how? and why? Makes no sense; doesn’t happen.

Why God says something is going to happen; it does…I agree, the timing I disagree. Just as Romans 8:29 uses “glorified”, it hasn’t happened, but is so definitive as written as though it has already happened.

I was not adding to Scripture. When I said “And it was” it means that when God speaks it happens. The wording of this passage is very clear. Nothing in that text indicates that this is a promise.
When God breathed on Adam, Adam came to life. Christ here is breathing on them to give them life so that in Him, they will be empowered to forgive sins.

How does one receive the Holy Spirit twice? I don’t know. But it is you who assume that they are receiving the Holy Spirit twice. Perhaps those on John:23 recieved the Holy Spirit and then at Pentecost, this full flowering of the Spirit came about. I don’t know, that is just my explanation. I might read up on that more.

But your take goes totally against the text. As I have said before, the promise happened in John 16.

Also, you did not answer my question regarding Jesus. He is God so must posses God’s Spirit and yet the Father sends down the Spirit on Him at His Baptism. Why did the Father have to send down the Holy Spirit on Him if he already posses God’s Spirit?

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2;4614537:

No,** there was nothing in the text that indicates that it is a pledge.**

**The wording is very clear. He breathes on them to impart them His spirit. **You, I believe, are even going against protestant interpretation to avoid having to acknowledge that God gave these men the power to forgive sins.

To **signify **imparting the Holy Spirit to come, which did 8 days later. You do not receive the Holy Spirit twice…do you?

But there is nothing in the text that means signifify. He actually breathed on them to give them His Spirit. I think you are in a very tiny minority who intereprets it this way because even protestant commentaries on this passage do not believe this is a a promise.

Only God has the power to forgive sins. I can give someone the Gospel and if they reject it, I can say your sins are not forgiven; likewise if they accept I can say your sins are forgiven…not by my own authority, but by the very Word of God. In either case, we don’t know the final outcome, the person who said no, may later come to his senses before death; likewise the one who accepted, may not in his heart…only a life of fruit and obedience will prove the outcome.

And HE CHOSE TO GIVE THAT POWER TO HIS DISCIPLES.

Put it this way, only God can heal. Only God can raise the dead.
And yet He gave some people that power. God CHOSE to give people that power.

You really have an issue with God’s choices don’t you?

Notice, he does not stop at whose sins you forgive they are forgiven. He also says whose sins you retain they are retained.

If this forgiving and retaining applies to all, then that means that if you retain someone’s sins then God will not forgive them either. Don’t you think that is rather ridiculous? There are hundreds of “born again” Christians out there who retain grudges against their neighbours. Does that mean that God bears grudges on these people as well?

Or take for example MrA who raped Mr and Mrs B’s daughter. Let’s say that Mr B has forgiven Mr A but Mrs B has not and will not. If God retains the sins we retain, what is God to do? If he forgives Mr A because Mr B has forgiven him then He would be going against His own words (which makes Him a liar) because Mrs B has not and will not forgive Mr A. Conversely, if He retained Mr A’s sins because Mrs B retained it, then He is still violating His own rule.

Please do not skim over the above analogy. Please read that very carefully before you reply.

 

[NonCatholic]

But there is nothing in the text that means signifify. He actually breathed on them to give them His Spirit. I think you are in a very tiny minority who intereprets it this way because even protestant commentaries on this passage do not believe this is a a promise.

And HE CHOSE TO GIVE THAT POWER TO HIS DISCIPLES.

Put it this way, only God can heal. Only God can raise the dead.
And yet He gave some people that power. God CHOSE to give people that power.

You really have an issue with God’s choices don’t you?

Notice, he does not stop at whose sins you forgive they are forgiven. He also says whose sins you retain they are retained.

If this forgiving and retaining applies to all, then that means that if you retain someone’s sins then God will not forgive them either. Don’t you think that is rather ridiculous? There are hundreds of “born again” Christians out there who retain grudges against their neighbours. Does that mean that God bears grudges on these people as well?

Or take for example MrA who raped Mr and Mrs B’s daughter. Let’s say that Mr B has forgiven Mr A but Mrs B has not and will not. If God retains the sins we retain, what is God to do? If he forgives Mr A because Mr B has forgiven him then He would be going against His own words (which makes Him a liar) because Mrs B has not and will not forgive Mr A. Conversely, if He retained Mr A’s sins because Mrs B retained it, then He is still violating His own rule.

Please do not skim over the above analogy. Please read that very carefully before you reply.

How can anyone receive the Holy Spirit twice?

I don’t think I’m following your logic on your analogy. God does not retain sins of the saved; he removes them as far as the east is to the west. So, if Mr. A, Mr. B and Mrs. B are regenerate souls, then God will not remember their sins, but if they do not know Jesus as both Savior and as Lord; shown by their repentant hearts, fruits and obedience, then they can be as good and forgiving as they want and it won’t make a difference to their souls.

In addition, retaining and loosing of sins is always in relation to the Word of God; it’s not their own authority; it always comes from the Word empowered to do the will of God via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit , the power the Apostles and all believers are given will always be in accordance with the Word in relation to judging one another.

But it is you who assume that they are receiving the Holy Spirit twice. Perhaps those on John:23 recieved the Holy Spirit and then at Pentecost, this full flowering of the Spirit came about.

The Spirit came upon them (Acts 2), then they immediately took action. This is a lot more convincing they received the Spirit, then, since they all acted in unison, rather than sitting around for 8 days…Jesus did tell them to wait in Jerusalem for the helper. He also said He had to leave because it was better for them because once He was gone He would send the Helper…yet another indication of what i spoke previously because Jesus had not completely left yet…had He?

The Holy Spirit could only enter someone twice if you believe you can be saved, then lose it, then regain it…which is a notion Scripture does not support.

 

[guanophore]

I might add that receiving power is key, we all are powerless until we receive the Holy Spirit, at least when it comes to the things of God. The Apostles received the power of the spirit to speak in tongues and signs and wonders; something we do not have have,

Well, speak for yourself! Some of us do!

but we have the power to be led to all truth after being saved. I don’t think Jesus breathing was futile, but I believe He was showing or demonstrating that which was to occur as it did 8 days later.
Just like Romans 8 where the word glorified is used, it is written as though it already happened because it it such a sure thing…Greeks often used the past tense for something that had not happened, but because it was so certain to happen they emphasized this by putting in the past tense.

Many times there is a gap between the annointing and the actual manifiestation. An example of this would be David’s annointing as King. This did not mean his annointing was not fully valid the moment it took place.

 

[guanophore]

How does one receive the Holy Spirit twice?  And how? and why? Makes no sense; doesn't happen.

I can understand why this is confusing. However, there are many manfestations and infillings of the HS. Take Stephen for example. He was chosen as a deacon for the early church because he was strong in the Spirit. Yet, when he was martyred
he was at that moment “filled” with the HS and saw a vision of heaven. Does this mean he did not receive the Spirit before? Surely not.

Why God says something is going to happen; it does…I agree, the timing I disagree. Just as Romans 8:29 uses “glorified”, it hasn’t happened, but is so definitive as written as though it has already happened.

Sometimes there is a gap of time between the annointing or giving of the gift and it’s actual manifestation of the promise. For example, Jesus declared Peter to be a Rock, but he clearly did not manifest much “rockness” in the near future.

 

[guanophore]

Only God has the power to forgive sins.

This is true. The power to forgive sins comes from God. It is only imparted through the authority of Jesus, our great High Priest.

I can give someone the Gospel and if they reject it, I can say your sins are not forgiven; likewise if they accept I can say your sins are forgiven…not by my own authority, but by the very Word of God. In either case, we don’t know the final outcome, the person who said no, may later come to his senses before death; likewise the one who accepted, may not in his heart…only a life of fruit and obedience will prove the outcome.

What you are saying is true, of course, but this is not what Jesus was talking about with the forgiving and retaining of sins.

If it were, then all the Apostles misunderstood Him, and He was too weak or disinterested to correct their misunderstanding, which was sacramental confession.

 

[guanophore]

How can anyone receive the Holy Spirit twice? The Holy Spirit could only enter someone twice if you believe you can be saved, then lose it, then regain it…which is a notion Scripture does not support.

The actions of the HS are many and varied. The Spirit seals us in baptism, but we can also grieve the HS of God, driving HIm out. Sin separates us from God, and when we walk in sin, we are farther and farther from the Spirit in whom we were sealed for the day of redemption. Our consciences can be seared as with a hot iron.

Heb 10:28-30
29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Both Paul and John talk about being caught up “in the Spirit”. This does not mean that they had not already received the Spirit previously.

It is possible to quench the Spirit, and to stir up the Spirit within.

It is a relationship, and if you have ever been close to someone, then you know that it can be very intimate or very distant. It is possible to drive a person who loves you away from you through hurtful actions.

 

[Cinette]

:harp: :harp:

I can understand why this is confusing. However, there are many manfestations and infillings of the HS. Take Stephen for example. He was chosen as a deacon for the early church because he was strong in the Spirit. Yet, when he was martyred
he was at that moment “filled” with the HS and saw a vision of heaven. Does this mean he did not receive the Spirit before? Surely not.

Sometimes there is a gap of time between the annointing or giving of the gift and it’s actual manifestation of the promise. For example, Jesus declared Peter to be a Rock, but he clearly did not manifest much “rockness” in the near future.

:harp: Spirit of the Living God fall afresh on us…: :harp:
*

 

[guanophore]

:harp: :harp: *
:harp: Spirit of the Living God fall afresh on us…: :harp:
*

 

[benedictus2]

How can anyone receive the Holy Spirit twice?

Guanophore did a very good reply to this so I will not re-explain. Also, as I said before YOU are the one saying that they received the Spirit twice.

I don’t think I’m following your logic on your analogy. God does not retain sins of the saved; he removes them as far as the east is to the west. So, if Mr. A, Mr. B and Mrs. B are regenerate souls, then God will not remember their sins, but if they do not know Jesus as both Savior and as Lord; shown by their repentant hearts, fruits and obedience, then they can be as good and forgiving as they want and it won’t make a difference to their souls.

Okay let me go slow here. Here are those verses again:

*22 **And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. **23 *Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU retain are retained.”

In that verse Jesus is infact saying to the disciples, whose sins you forgive, I forgive them as well. And whose sins you retain, I will retain them as well. With me so far?

Now you are saying that this is not addressed to the apostles but to everyone in general. Okay, fair enough. I’ll ride along with the interpretation that this is addressed to every believer.

I now give you this hypothetical scenario.

MrA raped Mr and Mrs B’s daughter.

Mr and Mrs B are both believers.

Mr A is bad man. But after that he felt remorse so he asked pardon from both Mr and Mrs B.

MrB forgave him but Mrs B did not.
Are we still clear up to this point? If not please re-read.

Based on verse 23 and based upon your interpretation, if MrB forgave MrA, then according to v23, Christ is saying He also forgives Mr A. So Mr A must be forgiven. Still getting this?

Problem is Mrs B did not forgive Mr A. But since she is also a believer, Christ is also bound by His promise that if you do not forgive, I will not forgive as well. So because Mrs B has retained Mr A’s sins, therefore based on v23 Christ retains MrA’s sins as well. So that means Christ does not forgive Mr A.

Now Christ is in a real quandary. If He forgives Mr A, He is lying to Mrs B. But if he does not forgive Mr A, He is breaking his promise to Mr B.

Do you know see how ridiculous that sounds?

In addition, retaining and loosing of sins is always in relation to the Word of God; it’s not their own authority; it always comes from the Word empowered to do the will of God via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit , the power the Apostles and all believers are given will always be in accordance with the Word in relation to judging one another.

Nope, the Word of God does not say that at all. It simply says whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained.

The Spirit came upon them (Acts 2), then they immediately took .
v
v
Scripture does not support.

Immaterial. No bearing at all on the discussion.

 

[joe370]

“…Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Matthew 28:20

Here Jesus says, to His chosen Apostles (Apostolic Church which is still in the world today, teaching ALL to observe All that Jesus commanded, thanks to the guidance of the H.S.WHO WILL BE WITH JESUS’ CHURCH “FOREVER” ) – “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Jesus clearly delegates authority/power to JUST ONE CHURCH, His Apostolic Church in His stead! If you could go back in time to the time when Jesus spoke these words, you would then realize that Jesus was referring to just One Church and if you can locate that One Church in the world today then you will find/locate the Apostolic Church Jesus built, His One Mystical Body. His Fathers House, the very Pillar and Foundation of Truth --with Jesus as the Savior of His created Church.

Jesus’ says He is the Way, the Truth, the Life; Jesus also says, “I am the gate, whoever enters through me will be saved.”

If Jesus’ One Church, His Body is the foundation of truth, with Jesus as the One Savior of that One Church, then His One Church is the One gate through which His sheep can be saved?

A gate gives us access to something. We go through a gate to get to what is on the other side.

Jesus seems to be saying that it is through Him, His One Church which is His Mystical Body, that we may enter into heaven (are saved).

A gate, His One Church --the only church built by God provides a way through a barrier. If not for the gate, we could not get in, because there is no way to get over or around the wall.

If --“There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name in all of heaven for people to call on to save them.” (Acts 4:12) --then there is salvation in no other church, Jesus’ Body in all of heaven for people to call to save them?

Jesus is the gate; Jesus is the Church; Jesus is the Savior of the Church, His Body and only through him, His Body, the Church will we enter heaven. Some people say there are many ways to get to the top of the mountain. But we’re not going to the top of the mountain, we are going into heaven through the gate–through Jesus Christ our ONE Savior.

You can go through that gate. The only requirement is that you go through the gate that Jesus built -The Church which is His Mystical Body, the House of the Living God here on earth, the Pillar (the column that supports a heavy weight) --and Foundation (the base on which something stands) --of truth, (That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence, and there can be only one truth, not thousands of differing truths).

Those who believe in Jesus, in the Church, His Body, to which He is the Savior, even though they die like everyone else, will live again. They are given eternal life for believing in Jesus and will never perish.

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, (in the Church I built, My Body, to which I am the Savior --he who observes all that Jesus has commanded His One Apostolic Church)– though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me (through the Church Jesus built on the Apostles and Prophets) shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25-26)

With that said, I ask again, non catholics ,why do non catholics insist that new members of their man-made church follow the pattern set forth by Jesus, transferred to His Apostolic Church to baptize their disciples? --*“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. **And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." ***–But completely ignore the pattern set forth by Jesus, transferred to His Apostolic Church, to forgive or retain sins, *“Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” *–and again, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." These are commandments set forth by Jesus in perpetuity; these commandments of perpetuity are impossible to refute, for they are in your bible!

Again, Can we pick and chose the commandments set forth by Jesus Christ as we see fit --predicated on the traditions of a church built on mere men in lieu of Jesus Christ’s One Church, built on the Apostles and Prophets?

Wouldn’t ALL protestant church leaders chastise me if I started my own church predicated on the authority of the bible (sola scriptura) --and announced to my congregation that Jesus’ command to “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit. --is once and for all abrogated?

Wouldn’t I unjustly catch some major criticism/opposition from the Protestant community? --Even though I am simply employing the same authority (private interpretation of my only authority –the bible) that all protestants employ, which is why the protestant world is so divided.

Again, In my defense, all I would have to say is, you are not the boss of me. I interpret the bible correctly; you are the one that interpreted it incorrectly—please see your bible if you don’t believe me. You go to your bible --quote Matthew 28:20 and tell me, see, I told you so, and I in turn, defy logic and simply tell you, as protestants tell me vis-a-vis confession, you are wrong –again, see how frustrating and illogical it can be from a catholic perspective!..

 

[joe370]

…Would God approve of me starting a new church, **even though He already built one and called that church His Body, the House of the Living God, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth --with Him as the Savior of His Body, the Church? ** Would He approve of me nixing His commandment to baptize?

If Jesus is the Church **(the Church is Jesus’ Body with Jesus as the Head and savior of His One Body, the Church) **–and Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me, then isn’t His One Church the way to the Father in Heaven?

Jesus said:“And I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” He said there is one gate to Heaven, but there are many gates to Hades.

Wouldn’t such action invalidate/ignore His command to baptize? —invalidate/ignore Jesus’ decree that the gates of Hades will not overcome the Church, His Body due to the fact that He is the Savior of the Church, His Body --by building a new church and declaring that my new church is the real church, NOT built by Jesus, a substitute Body, a new house NOT of the Living God, a substitute pillar and foundation of truth —Is Jesus still the Savior of this new church, again, built by me?
Something new has to be built, only when the original failed, broke or is rendered inefficient --no longer efficacious. Can a mere man or woman really fix what God apparently could not protect/defend/maintain when He said,

“… I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18 (New King James Version)

If you tell me that I cannot nix the Sacrament of Baptism, then you cannot nix the Sacrament of Confession. If you say I can nix Baptism, then anything goes! Soon we will have churches popping up, denying that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life denying that No one comes to the Father except through Jesus.

I guess the point I am trying to illustrate is, if we replace the proper authority by the Church, Jesus’ Body, the House of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth --all of which Jesus is the head and Savior, with a new man-made authority --sola scriptura, or man-made church, then commands given to Jesus’ Apostolic Church, can be arbitrarily flouted, e.g. confession, and no man-made authority, be it sola scriptura or a man-made church has the right to judge any of the other churches. Shockingly, I see protestants judging the C.C, a product of God–calling her the whore of Babylon, the anti-Christ etc. etc. --more then any other man-made church. How can something built by God and promised by God that It would never fail, be the quintessential antithesis?

How can Jesus Christ who Is Truth, who Is the Apostolic Church (It is His Body and He is the Head of His Body) be the anti-Christ who "was a murderer from the beginning, and* abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. *When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it. "

By the way, I am not suggesting any non-Catholic on this thread is saying that; It’s simply a hypothetical question!

 

[joe370]

Hey windgirl…
You said, “Maybe that’s because we know it IS wrong. And you can keep proclaiming it isn’t until you’re blue in the face.”

Could you please illustrate why you believe the C.C. is wrong? You can keep proclaiming it is wrong until you’re blue in the face, but just saying something is wrong doesn’t make it wrong. I’d be interested to hear the premise (a basis, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds) to support your beliefs!

 

[joe370]

Quote by noncatholic, If they already had the Holy Spirit, then why did Jesus say the following?
Acts 1:6-8 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

**Scripture interprets Scripture…that is my interpretation…what is yours?
**

If scripture infallibly interprets scripture, regardless of the doctrine, then why are there so many different interpretations regarding any one doctrine? Surely there can be only one interpretation of any one doctrine.

And may I add? This is a pledge for all believers. Every Christian possesses the Holy Spirit.

So, you are saying it doesn’t matter what church I attend, or even if I attend a church? Knowing this might be a good starting point. Your profile says you have no religious affiliation –does that make you a sola scriptura advocate like my dad and sister, if you don’t mind me asking?

Pentecost…
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE HOLY SPIRIT–GOD, IS MANIFESTED SEEMS TO ME LIKE AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY; THE POINT IS IT HAPPENED TO THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH CIRCA 33 AD. The Father gives the Spirit through the intervention of the glorified Christ. Peter says so in his address: Jesus, “being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, has poured out this which you see and hear” (Acts 2:33). At Pentecost, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, the Holy Spirit is “manifested, given and communicated as a divine Person… On that day, the Holy Trinity is fully revealed” (CCC 731-732).

The whole Trinity, in fact, is involved in the in breaking of the Spirit, who is poured out upon the first community (the first members of Jesus’ Apostolic Church) – in every age as the seal of the New Covenant foretold by the prophets (cf. Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:24-27), to support its witness and as a source of unity, which was to be the hallmark of Jesus’ One Church. In the power of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles proclaim the Risen One, and all believers, in the diversity of their languages and thus of their cultures and historical events, profess the same faith in the Lord, “telling … the mighty works of God” --ALL united as one.(Acts 2:11)

In the New Testament, there is another account that we could call the Johannine Pentecost. In the fourth Gospel, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit actually takes place on the very evening of Easter and is closely connected to the Resurrection. In John we read: *"On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you!’. When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you’. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” *(Jn 20:19-23).

The glory of the Trinity also shines out in this Johannine account: the glory of the risen Christ who appears in his glorious body, of the Father, who is the source of the apostolic mission, and of the Spirit poured out as the gift of peace. This fulfills the promise which Christ had made between these same walls in his farewell discourse to the disciples: *“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” *John 14:26 The Spirit’s presence in the Church is intended for the forgiveness of sins, for remembering and carrying out the Gospel in life, for the ever deeper achievement of unity in love.

The symbolic act of breathing, as others have said, is meant to recall the action of the Creator who, after forming man’s body from the dust of the ground, “breathed into his nostrils” to give him “the breath of life” (Gn 2:7). The risen Christ communicates another breath of life, “the Holy Spirit”. Redemption is a new creation, a Divine work with which His created Church is called to collaborate through the ministry of reconciliation, in perpetuity.

The day Jesus is resurrected --the commission to forgive sins or retain sins –first of many manifestation over a period of 40 days is commanded…