Protestants, Catholics, and Confession

[InLight247]

I have to admit I prefer confessing to a priest, not only because I find solace in it, but also because it is alot harder to confess to someone rather then in silence to God. Knowing there is no judgement and also that there will be learning in the end makes it all that much better.
Having said that… How does one explain to a protestant Christian why exactly Catholics confess to a priest? I have been wrestling with this question since my Baptist wife asked me this a while ago.

Confessing to a priest makes both the repentance and forgiveness more concrete.

Like you said, it is much harder to orally say out loud our faults, to accuse ourselves of our sins to the priest (the representative of Christ) than secretly talking to God in silence. By doing so, the grace of humility and obedience help our resolution of overcoming the sins we confessed. Psychologically speaking, hearing the words “I absolve you …” from the representative of Christ also gives us peace.

But the bottom line is that Jesus commanded us to do so when He established the Sacrament of Reconciliation himself. (John 20:23)

 

[JimR-OCDS]

From the Cathechism of the Catholic Church

VI. THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND RECONCILIATION

1440 Sin is before all else an offense against God, a rupture of communion with him. At the same time it damages communion with the Church. For this reason conversion entails both God’s forgiveness and reconciliation with the Church, which are expressed and accomplished liturgically by the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.38

Only God forgives sin

1441 Only God forgives sins.39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, “The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven."40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.41

1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."42 The apostle is sent out “on behalf of Christ” with “God making his appeal” through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."43

Reconciliation with the Church

1443 During his public life Jesus not only forgave sins, but also made plain the effect of this forgiveness: he reintegrated forgiven sinners into the community of the People of God from which sin had alienated or even excluded them. A remarkable sign of this is the fact that Jesus receives sinners at his table, a gesture that expresses in an astonishing way both God’s forgiveness and the return to the bosom of the People of God.44

1444 In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ’s solemn words to Simon Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."45 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head."46

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm#I

 

[mrhav]

Where in the bible does it say that Jesus gave the apostles the right to hear confessions? Also, where does it say the Catholic Church is the true church?

 

[InLight247]

Where in the bible does it say that Jesus gave the apostles the right to hear confessions?

John 20:23

Also, where does it say the Catholic Church is the true church?

You must come from a Sola Scriptura point of view.
Please know it is the Church (Catholic Church) gave us(the world) the Bible.

Jesus found the Church, the Church decided what books are included in the Bible. Not the other way around.

 

[InLight247]

And the fact Jesus found the Church (which is in the Bible) already told us Catholic Church is the true Church. Peter is the first Bishop of the Church, and the Church is Catholic Church.

This fact tells us Catholic Church is the true Church.

 

[SyCarl]

And the fact Jesus found the Church (which is in the Bible) already told us Catholic Church is the true Church. Peter is the first Bishop of the Church, and the Church is Catholic Church.

This fact tells us Catholic Church is the true Church.

You are making a circular argument. You cannot use the authority of the Bible to establish the authority of the Church if the Bible cannot be known unless the Church’s authority is established first. How do we know the Church has that authority except that it says so?

 

[InLight247]

There is no circle but a line.

What I am saying is this:

1. It is a fact in the Bible that Jesus found the Church.
2. That Church, with Peter as the first Bishop, is the church being passed down from the apostles until today - the Catholic Church.

It is a direct line.

 

[MSJoan]

This question reminds me of a line from “A Man for All Seasons” in which Thomas More responds to a question as to why he cannot support King Henry VIII’s divorce/remarriage. Paraphrasing here, he responded that when we are called to account for our actions in this life, we will have to answer as to whether or not these actions were consistent with our conscience, not our neighbor’s.

Jesus told the disciples “receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” (20:22-23). Our faith, handed down by the apostles and their successors commands us to confess our mortal sins to a priest, in persona Christe. (It doesn’t hurt to confess the venial ones either.)

Do I like having to tell a priest what I’ve done wrong, not in the least bit. But, it helps to hear that I am forgiven and helps me to avoid the sin again; and more importantly, it’s what Jesus told us to do.

 

[Teflon93]

Sacraments were created by God, not Man—we do not have the power to alter them.

The short answer to your question is that Martin Luther didn’t want to confess his sins over and over again.

The more nuanced answer is that Protestants are the sons and daughters of Luther and Henry VIII, both of whom struggled with mortal sin and ultimately found that the Church’s requirement to subject oneself to the will of God as expressed through the Church to be unacceptable to them. First came the heresy (the unwillingness to recognize the authority of the Church), then the doctrine; not the other way around.

Sins hate the dark, and the sacrament of penitence and confession requires exposing them to the light. I am a former Protestant, and while I confessed to God, I didn’t search my conscience as thoroughly or completely as I had to do to attend my first Confession. It was excruciating to do so. But these sins are truly forgiven now----I didn’t fully realize until I experienced the sacrament that I’d been carrying around this baggage all these years, despite “confessing” directly to God.

It’s not that the Protestant practics isn’t good enough for Catholics, but that it’s not good enough for anybody. It also encourages people to “sin boldly” (Luther’s phrase, not mine) which is hardly to be considered a good thing.

 

[guanophore]

You are making a circular argument. You cannot use the authority of the Bible to establish the authority of the Church if the Bible cannot be known unless the Church’s authority is established first. How do we know the Church has that authority except that it says so?

This is true, but he is not being circular. Jesus personally established the Church. The Church then wrote the NT. Both are by the authority of Christ.

 

[Calvinator]

It’s not that the Protestant practics isn’t good enough for Catholics, but that it’s not good enough for anybody. It also encourages people to “sin boldly” (Luther’s phrase, not mine) which is hardly to be considered a good thing.

Your statement above is the equivalent of me saying that catholic confession also encourages one to sin boldly. After all, live a life of debauchery Monday thru Saturday afternoon, confess on Saturday afternoon, go to mass on Sunday…and all is well.

 

[Calvinator]

Your statement above is the equivalent of me saying that catholic confession also encourages one to sin boldly. After all, live a life of debauchery Monday thru Saturday afternoon, confess on Saturday afternoon, go to mass on Sunday…and all is well.

I should have ended this by saying neither statement is accurate.

 

[InLight247]

Your statement above is the equivalent of me saying that catholic confession also encourages one to sin boldly. After all, live a life of debauchery Monday thru Saturday afternoon, confess on Saturday afternoon, go to mass on Sunday…and all is well.

You say so is because you don’t understand the Sacrament of Confession. Catholics do not hold such a mentality about confession. Actually, it is the opposite. We govern ourselves by daily examination of conscience and be careful not to sin lest we should go to confession.

No Catholic in the right mentality thinks one can freely sin because one can just go to confession afterwards. If so, that is another sin.

If you understand the Church teaching about the Sacrament of Confession, you will not say what you said.

 

[Teflon93]

Your statement above is the equivalent of me saying that catholic confession also encourages one to sin boldly. After all, live a life of debauchery Monday thru Saturday afternoon, confess on Saturday afternoon, go to mass on Sunday…and all is well.

Sure it would be—but for the fact that Catholics do not subscribe to OSAS, sola fide, nor any other heretical silliness.

You can take issue with Luther as you like. He perfected the notion of bold sinning as a strong indicator of faith.

 

[Calvinator]

You say so is because you don’t understand the Sacrament of Confession. Catholics do not hold such a mentality about confession. Actually, it is the opposite. We govern ourselves by daily examination of conscience and be careful not to sin lest we should go to confession.

No Catholic in the right mentality thinks one can freely sin because one can just go to confession afterwards. If so, that is another sin.

If you understand the Church teaching about the Sacrament of Confession, you will not say what you said.

Go back and re-read my post and the post I quoted.

 

[Calvinator]

Sure it would be—but for the fact that Catholics do not subscribe to OSAS, sola fide, nor any other heretical silliness.

You can take issue with Luther as you like. He perfected the notion of bold sinning as a strong indicator of faith.

I guess dialogue isn’t one of your strong points.

Have you ever read anything by Luther? If so, what?

What exactly did Luther mean by “sinning boldly”?

I suspect you are just using this as a “sound byte” and have neither read anything by Luther or have any interest in knowing the truth if it’s inconvenient to your apologetics effort.

 

[Teflon93]

I guess dialogue isn’t one of your strong points.

Have you ever read anything by Luther? If so, what?

What exactly did Luther mean by “sinning boldly”?

I suspect you are just using this as a “sound byte” and have neither read anything by Luther or have any interest in knowing the truth if it’s inconvenient to your apologetics effort.

Wow, you really pegged me—I have no interest in the truth, which is why I turned my back on Protestantism and embraced the Catholic Church. Guess I wasn’t one of the Elect, eh?

I have read a number of things by Luther, as well as a number of histories of the Reformation. I have also enjoyed The Teaching Company’s excellent lecture series on Luther. Have you read Luther? His correspondence is particularly illuminating. His pre-heresy writings might be of interest as well; the Pope has been known to favorably remark upon them.

Luther’s “sinning boldly” comment has been a source of debate ever since he uttered it. It seems to me to be the natural extension of sola fide----we can sin boldly because we have faith that we have been saved despite our sins. That this was taken as a license to sin was readily apparent in Luther’s own day in the anarchy which engulfed the churches and orders which subscribed to the Lutheran heresy.

Well, I’ll leave off there—I’ve strayed way beyond soundbite limits.

 

[Calvinator]

Wow, you really pegged me—I have no interest in the truth, which is why I turned my back on Protestantism and embraced the Catholic Church. Guess I wasn’t one of the Elect, eh?

I have read a number of things by Luther, as well as a number of histories of the Reformation. I have also enjoyed The Teaching Company’s excellent lecture series on Luther. Have you read Luther? His correspondence is particularly illuminating. His pre-heresy writings might be of interest as well; the Pope has been known to favorably remark upon them.

Luther’s “sinning boldly” comment has been a source of debate ever since he uttered it. It seems to me to be the natural extension of sola fide----we can sin boldly because we have faith that we have been saved despite our sins. That this was taken as a license to sin was readily apparent in Luther’s own day in the anarchy which engulfed the churches and orders which subscribed to the Lutheran heresy.

Well, I’ll leave off there—I’ve strayed way beyond soundbite limits.

First off, you jumped in with the comment…something about heretical silliness (wasn’t it?), so spare me your scarcasm.

If you have read Luther, you probably realize he didn’t intend that to be taken as a license to sin.

You wrote “That this was taken as a license to sin was readily apparent in Luther’s own day in the anarchy which engulfed the churches and orders which subscribed to the Lutheran heresy.” and I guess I’ll ask is your new church any better off?

Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw bricks.

 

[Teflon93]

First off, you jumped in with the comment…something about heretical silliness (wasn’t it?), so spare me your scarcasm.

If you have read Luther, you probably realize he didn’t intend that to be taken as a license to sin.

You wrote “That this was taken as a license to sin was readily apparent in Luther’s own day in the anarchy which engulfed the churches and orders which subscribed to the Lutheran heresy.” and I guess I’ll ask is your new church any better off?

Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw bricks.

Touchy, touchy.

Anyone who’s read Luther quite understands the man had two conflicting natures—the poet and the beast, to put descriptors on them. What he intended is therefore not always clear from his writings.

What ought to be clear is that someone preaching we ought to “sin boldly” needs to be very, very careful. Luther was nothing if not imprudent, as even his fans would agree.

And as I’ve stated elsewhere, I’ve got a soft spot for the ol’ bugger, despite the havoc he wrought. Who wouldn’t, having read his positively scatalogical correspondence?

Okay, just a taste: here’s a bit from one of his tamer treatises, Against the Murderous Thieving Hordes of Peasants:

"Whosoever can, should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man… the Gospel does not make goods common, except in the case of those who do of their own free will what the apostles and disciples did in Acts IV. They did not demand, as do our insane peasants in their raging, that the goods of others - of a Pilate and a Herod - should be common, but only their own goods. Our peasants, however, would have other men’s goods common, and keep their own goods for themselves. Fine Christians these! I think there is not a devil left in hell; they have all gone into the peasants. "

Gotta love it.

Now, to your last point. What do you see as being the anarchy of the Catholic Church?

Not that I don’t think you don’t already know to what I was referring in Luther’s situation, but I’d point you to:

The Peasants’ War
The confiscation of church lands by the German princes
The destruction of the monastic orders (particularly once Luther’s rejection of Holy Orders became clear)
Breaking his future wife out of a nunnery
Luther’s support for Philip I of Hesse’s polygamy

Apres Martin, le deluge, in other words.

So where’s our comparable anarchy?

 

[Calvinator]

Touchy, touchy.

Anyone who’s read Luther quite understands the man had two conflicting natures—the poet and the beast, to put descriptors on them. What he intended is therefore not always clear from his writings.

What ought to be clear is that someone preaching we ought to “sin boldly” needs to be very, very careful. Luther was nothing if not imprudent, as even his fans would agree.

And as I’ve stated elsewhere, I’ve got a soft spot for the ol’ bugger, despite the havoc he wrought. Who wouldn’t, having read his positively scatalogical correspondence?

Okay, just a taste: here’s a bit from one of his tamer treatises, Against the Murderous Thieving Hordes of Peasants:

"Whosoever can, should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man… the Gospel does not make goods common, except in the case of those who do of their own free will what the apostles and disciples did in Acts IV. They did not demand, as do our insane peasants in their raging, that the goods of others - of a Pilate and a Herod - should be common, but only their own goods. Our peasants, however, would have other men’s goods common, and keep their own goods for themselves. Fine Christians these! I think there is not a devil left in hell; they have all gone into the peasants. "

Gotta love it.

Now, to your last point. What do you see as being the anarchy of the Catholic Church?

Not that I don’t think you don’t already know to what I was referring in Luther’s situation, but I’d point you to:

The Peasants’ War
The confiscation of church lands by the German princes
The destruction of the monastic orders (particularly once Luther’s rejection of Holy Orders became clear)
Breaking his future wife out of a nunnery
Luther’s support for Philip I of Hesse’s polygamy

Apres Martin, le deluge, in other words.

So where’s our comparable anarchy?

Before I begin, is it your contention that the RCC has no comparable or worse skeletons in it’s closet?

I see you just swam the Tiber in '07 so you are still in your honeymoon phase but even so, you most likely realize an organization as old as your church is going to have some skeletons in it’s closet.