Protestants, can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?

[benedictus2]

Yeah, actually, you are and the more rude and aggressive you become, the less I’m inclined to take the bait.

Actually NOT. You perceive me as agressive because you just don’t know how to explain the passage I cited. As a matter of fact I am thinking that you probably have not even come across the passage.

Here’s is how our debate went.

You (post 844) : "Second, the Bible never says that the church or it’s ministers can forgive sins, only that they can proclaim salvation and the forgiveness of sins through Christ. "

One TruthCath (post 845) wrote: "What do you say to this Scripture passage when Jesus breathed on the Apostles and told them “what sins you forgive are forgiven them, what sin you retain is retained”. Is that not SOOOOOO clearly given a teaching to the Apostles to forgive sin? How do you interpret this? "

**You replied (post 846): “**Same answer I gave last time.”

Now the answer you gave the last time was post 844 which was NO ANSWER at all because 844 DID NOT HAVE ANY EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER of John 20:21-23 which One True Cath quoted so you were clearly lying here.

So I asked in post 847: “What do you think does John 20:21-23 mean?”

And you replied again in post 849: “Same answer I gave before.”
Which presumably is 844 again which IS NO ANSWER AT ALL.

So since your post 844 did not answer what we were asking I asked again in post 850: "I looked at your previous posts in this thread and there doesn’t seem to be any that answers this question from OneTrueCathApos. "

So piggy backing on his post, what do you think John 20:21-23 mean?

And I said in post 851: "You mean no answer Dodging will get you nowhere. "

To which you replied in post 853: “I didn’t dodge the question. I answered it. It isn’t my fault that you’re too lazy and too disrepectful to read my posts before you respond to them”

But remember, so far the only post you have made with some sort of sense in it so far was post 844. I actually thought that you might have written something more substantial than post 844 which I must have missed somehow.

And in post 854 you confirmed that with: " Actually, I do have an answer and I gave it in post #844."

Which as I have said before was no answer at all that is why I wrote in post 857 that YOUR POST 844 DID NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE PASSAGE WE HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU FROM THE BEGINNING.

So KC, we did read what you posted but there was nothing to read.

And now you say I am being rude when you were in actual fact being arrogant by writing all the time “As I have written” when YOU HAVE WRITTEN NOTHING AT ALL.

So I was right the first time. You just have no answer. And now you are hiding behind this sanctimonious holier than thou attitude. Sorry, but it doesn’t work with me.

 

[Bill_Pick]

If you believe the Bible the Bible say YES, When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained

 

[benedictus2]

]

If you believe the Bible the Bible say YES, When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained

The operative word being IF.

 

[Bill_Pick]

no.

First of all, the bible tells us in the book of hebrews that jesus christ has done away with the need for priests.

Second, the bible never says that the church or it’s ministers can forgive sins, only that they can proclaim salvation and the forgiveness of sins through christ.

wrong answer and the bible will tell us it is the wrong answer

 

[kcmekim]

I was right the first time. You just have no answer.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I’ve answered the question at least twice now.

 

[Ginger2]

May I ask what you (Catholics) believe Acts 15:8 means when Peter said "God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ?

 

[Ginger2]

I really can’t believe this thread is still going.

A long time ago it was proven priests can’t forgive sin the way God can, nor can they condemn someone to hell by refusing to forgive him/her.

See post # 's 14 & 15

 

[Bill_Pick]

Giner We must have two diff Bible My Bible tell me that Jesus also gave the power to forgive sin to the Apostle also here is WHAT JESUS SAID not me but My Lord====He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained
Jesus only breathed on some one twice in all the bible.

 

[Ginger2]

I knew a person who for years mistakenly thought he could commit venial sins because they could be forgiven by a priest at confession.

The priest always told him he was forgiven, and the man believed it.

Then another man (a Protestant) explained the word “repent”. The 1st man stopped committing premeditated venial sins and asked God for forgiveness. Afterward, I witnessed a striking change in this man’s behavior.

So when do you think this man actually received forgiveness from his sins?

Confession is definitely beneficial and good for the soul:

James 5:16 Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

This doesn’t say confess your sins to a priest. It says confess to one another - … That’s how the Scriptures tell us to do it.

Mat 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Show me one instance where Christians went to an Apostle to confess rather than going directly to the injured party?

One instance where an Apostle said he was coming to a church to hear confessions?

 

[Ginger2]

I don’t want my question missed…

May I ask what you (Catholics) believe Acts 15:8 means when Peter said "God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Confession is definitely beneficial and good for the soul:

James 5:16 Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

This doesn’t say confess your sins to a priest. It says confess to one another - … That’s how the Scriptures tell us to do it.

Mat 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Show me one instance where Christians went to an Apostle to confess rather than going directly to the injured party?

One instance where an Apostle said he was coming to a church to hear confessions?

Well that is hard to understand we did not have a bible B4 the year of say 300 or 400 and all the Apostle are now in heaven,In fact tell me of one time one of the apostle said he was going to church WHY DO YOU THINK Jesus breathed on them(Sorry for the capps)

 

[Bill_Pick]

Well that is hard to understand we did not have a bible B4 the year of say 300 or 400 and all the Apostle are now in heaven,In fact tell me of one time one of the apostle said he was going to church WHY DO YOU THINK Jesus breathed on them(Sorry for the capps)

if it was so cut that sin are forgiven why do you think Our Lord takes HIs time to breaded on the apostle WHY would Jesus do this and tell them what He said You sin are forgiven it make No sense

 

[Ginger2]

… tell me of one time one of the apostle said he was going to church.

1Cr 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, **as I teach every where in every church.
**
1Cr 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

ol 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the [epistle] from Laodicea.

However, most of the time, “church” was used to refer to the body of believers.

… we did not have a bible B4 the year of say 300 or 400 and all the Apostle are now in heaven,…

All the Holy Scriptures were written and in circulation before the end of the first century. Christians knew which books were inspired as they knew the authors.
What we didn’t have was all the Scriptures placed into one book like today.

 

[Ginger2]

…Our Lord … breaded … the apostle WHY would Jesus do this …

Good Heavens!!!

I have no idea!

 

[Bill_Pick]

1Cr 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, **as I teach every where in every church.
**
1Cr 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

However, most of the time, “church” was used to refer to the body of believers.

All the Holy Scriptures were written and in circulation before the end of the first century. Christians knew which books were inspired as they knew the authors.
What we didn’t have was all the Scriptures placed into one book like today.

Dont think so Ginger What about the gosple of Judas,the Gosple of Mary,the gospel of Peter if all are inspired why are they not in the Bible

 

[Ginger2]

Dont think so Ginger What about the gosple of Judas,the Gosple of Mary,the gospel of Peter if all are inspired why are they not in the Bible

Who said they are inspired?

Let me give you an example:

De Obitu S. Dominae, bears the name of Apostle John. Why is it not considered Scripture and included in the Bible? Because it couldn’t have been written by John since it wasn’t written until long after John was dead.

Just because somebody places the name of a first century Christian on his work, doesn’t mean people are going to consider it inspired. First century Christians knew what was Scripture and what wasn’t because the authors were still alive!

Wait a minute…why would any Christian consider writings by Judas inspired? Are we to assume everyone who had contact with Jesus wrote under inspiration? I guess Pharisaic writings are also inspired even tho they would deny Jesus.

And one more thing, Just because someone wrote under inspiration, it does not mean every thing they wrote was inspired. Paul even pointed out that some of the instructions he gave were his personal opinion and not commands of God.

And if the Gospel of Peter is deemed to be authentic and inspired. Why wouldn’t it be held in the same authority as his other scriptures?..Oh yeah, the Catholic Church has boxed itself in and close the canon ex-cathedral.

BTW, that can’t happen as it was written , I think, in the 6th century and contains errors.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Ginger You are still confused here is waht you said "Christians knew which books were inspired as they knew the authors:
Now see what you said,now you are saying they do not know Peter,Mary or Judas,it s very hard to try to debate with you.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger You are still confused here is waht you said "Christians knew which books were inspired as they knew the authors:
Now see what you said,now you are saying they do not know Peter,Mary or Judas,it s very hard to try to debate with you.

1st century Christians knew Peter and Mary. They knew of Judas, but not all personally knew Judas.

Since all the writers of the New Testament finished their Epistles and books and written testimonies before the end of the 1st century, 1st century Christians would know whether or not the claimed author really wrote the book/epistle.

Since the Gospel of Peter was probably not written until the second century, (only copies from the 6th century have been found) Peter died before the end of the 1st century, and Peter could not possibly have written it, I can say with relative certainty no one from the 1st considered the Gospel of Peter inspired.

Judas was considered a traitor. I hardly think they would consider anything he might have written inspired.

Furthermore, as I have already stated. Just because someone wrote something under inspiration, does not mean everything they wrote was inspired.

Do you understand what I am saying, now?

 

[Zundrah]

Where in John 20: 21-23 does Jesus use the word successors?? HIS statement here applies to the church as a whole. That’s why in the Our Father Jesus tells us to ask the Father for forgiveness but as we forgive others.

GOD is the only one that can forgive sin. Period!! We can forgive each other for sinning against one another but only GOD can pronounce forgiveness for the actuall sin itself. That’s why Christ died and that’s why we follow HIM. We are justified in GOD’s eyes by the blood of Christ.

PEACE

I’m not sure why you ended that post with “PEACE”, there certainly wont be any here!

…Priest, forgive sins? I don’t think so!

 

[Bill_Pick]

1st century Christians knew Peter and Mary. They knew of Judas, but not all personally knew Judas.

Since all the writers of the New Testament finished their Epistles and books and written testimonies before the end of the 1st century, 1st century Christians would know whether or not the claimed author really wrote the book/epistle.

Since the Gospel of Peter was probably not written until the second century, (only copies from the 6th century have been found) Peter died before the end of the 1st century, and Peter could not possibly have written it, I can say with relative certainty no one from the 1st considered the Gospel of Peter inspired.

Judas was considered a traitor. I hardly think they would consider anything he might have written inspired.

Furthermore, as I have already stated. Just because someone wrote something under inspiration, does not mean everything they wrote was inspired.

Do you understand what I am saying, now?

Well you did a good job of dancing around Peter and Judas but you left out Mary,Do you understand what I am saying,now