protestants not confessing to a priest

  • Thread starter Thread starter ejp123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are cases in which priests have denied absolution, such as in cases of women who have been sterilized. Basically saying, “I don’t care whether you feel sorry or not. I’m not granting forgiveness for that sin. Period.”
Nabooru, throwing out hypothetical conversations between a priest and one confessing their sins is not helpful. I have been Catholic all of my life and have confessed to many different priests. Never have I heard a priest with the callous attitude that you have portrayed here. The only sin that is not forgiven, as I have said before, is one in which the person confessing refuses to correct (i.e. living together outside of marriage and refusing to change the situation). In any case, please tell me where you have heard of these cases where someone has been denied absolution, other than from those bashing the Church in your own circles.
Now is that woman going to hell because some particular priest wouldn’t absolve her?
Apparently you are not reading my posts very carefully. The Church does not (and cannot) condemn people to hell. To the contrary, it provides the means for them to be forgiven by God.
It is only up to God to forgive in any case, and He is not bound to the absolution formally granted by members of the clergy.
“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…” Sounds pretty clear to me.
You accuse me of twisting Christ’s words. I could accuse you of the same - that you accept the Catholic interpretation just because the church demanded you do so. You assume that Christ spoke to all future church hierarchy, when Christ makes no mention of priests or bishops. There are a number of alternative explanations.
Yes, that is the problem with Protestantism in general and the reason that Jesus’ desire for unity has been thrown by the wayside and generally ignored. There are a number of alternative explanations for those who hold themselves up as the final authority rather than accepting and submitting to the authority Christ gave to the one, true Church which he established.
I personally feel that - and I say this honestly - that the church interprets the verses in that way, making what applied to the apostles apply to all future church leaders, no matter how corrupt or far separated, in order to make God’s authority their own.
Yes, you have made that quite clear. Why are you here? To save all of us poor misled people from the evils of the Catholic Church? Your words are highly offensive and whether you know it or not you are speaking about the Church that Christ himself founded.
t simply does not make sense that God would give His Divine Power to humans.
Really? Did you ever read in the scritpures where the Apostles healed people and drove out demons? Do you think they did that by their own power?
The Orthodox do not see confession in such a way, and they are not condemned by the RCC for it. Nor do they see Peter as having particular successors. I am inclined towards their view.
If you know as much about the Orthodox as you do the Catholic Church I would take a little time and study up before making such comments. The Orthodox received their authority from the same words of Christ as did the Catholic Church.
 
Here’s one big issue I have with it. We all have “bad” things we did that we’re not particularly sorry about. I’ve been told by the RCC that using ABC is a grave sin, but even after all the painful attempts to do so, I just can’t bring myself to think it wrong. I know many, many Catholics feel the same way. You might as well tell us that being a vegetarian or having casino nights to raise money for a cause is wrong.

And it doesn’t need to be something like that. How many times have you felt that mean little sense of satisfaction after telling off someone who’s been giving you trouble? Perhaps a co-worker is well-known for being difficult, mean-spirited, backstabbing, etc. and you finally let them know, in full view of everyone, exactly what they are (although not in the most PG-13 terms). You walk away thinking, “Finally that jerk got his!” and, no matter how much you try to make yourself feel guilty about it, you just can’t help but feel good, or at least neutral. After all, didn’t he need to hear that? Didn’t you just come to the defense of your fellow co-workers?

The fact is we all have things we do, that could be considered sins, that we don’t feel ashamed about. In such a case, our contrition for that particular sin is dishonest, and that’s saying if we even confess it. The Protestant point of view is that we are repentant in general, even if not in the particular, for our wins. Our fallen nature, and that of the world, makes us imperfect, and that makes our understanding of right and wrong in many circumstances skewed and confusing. So, the Protestant acknowledges his or her sins but also his or her sinful state, which causes us to feel at the very least unsure of ourselves and our merits.

Also, there is the case of forgetting a sin. Suppose when I was very young - say around nine or ten, so a child, but still old enough to be culpable - I stole some money from my mother’s purse, and being a child, was too afraid to tell anybody, even my priest. I may very well forget about it later and have no idea later in life of what I did. It was a sin I committed deliberately, and with full knowledge of its naughtiness. Since I failed to confess it, am I in grave danger?

All I’m saying is that, to a Protestant, the RC position puts too much power in the hands of the hierarchy, which consists of men. That’s all. It is repeatedly stated in Scripture that God alone forgives sins. The verses the RCC see as justifying the cause for specific confession of sins to a priest can be interpreted differently, and when the apostles - including Peter - spread the Gospel, they did so by emphasizing belief and acceptance of Christ to have one’s sins forgiven. People who heard the gospel repent out of their new-found faith: the guilt they feel over offending God up to this point.

Protestants DO confess and repent. We simply do not believe that going to a priest is necessary to do so. Absolution is granted by God alone in Christ. As I said above, a priest is human. He might deny me absolution, either because he personally sees my sin as so disgusting he simply won’t allow it to be forgiven, or he could simply not like me. He’s human. I can’t let the salvation and redemption of my soul fall to a fallible, capricious human being, as human beings are, and I do not believe God would have done it. Jesus sent
His apostles; that doesn’t mean he granted the apostles’ authority to anyone else who claimed to be their successors. Jesus breathed on them, not the Pope!

That is the general Protestant view. God wouldn’t do something that wouldn’t make sense.

I’m not being rude. You are assuming I am because I disagree with you and you are getting defensive. The topic is about why Protestants don’t go to formal private confession with a member of the clergy, and as a Protestant I felt compelled to add my two cents on the Protestant point of view. I don’t believe Catholics are damned. They are Christians who accept Christ as their Savior in the redemption of their souls. You don’t think the same of me, but you can’t please everybody.
 
To figure out who is right…it is impossible to go back and forth with Bible quotes to prove yourself.

You have to back to the times of the Apostles and the first hundreds of years of Christianity to understand how penance was understood and practiced. This is Tradition. And what has endured from this time is the intention of Christ and the apostles.

I think people are looking too much at the person and not at Christ and the great experience of absolution by Our Lord. They do not know what they are missing.
 
American Lutherans typically don’t confess with their Pastor however…

I had an especially persistent minor sin that I had trouble not repeating, so I asked my Pastor we he could officiate my confession, and I was really pleased. With a human witness to my interaction with God, I found that I had more mental fortitude to no longer sin again when the opportunity arose.

So if you’re Lutheran, perhaps badger your Paster if you have an especially tractable sin. Worked for me, and I can see how our Catholic friends think we’re missing something.
 
I never confessed personally in the LCMS and I haven’t yet in the ACNA, but I still might. Remember: All may, some should, none must.
 
You have only shown that you have no understanding of the sacrament. Of course it is God who forgives our sins. I have stated that very thing more than a few times righ here in this thread. And the means he uses to forgive our sins is the sacrament of Reconciliation. The priest has no power on his own to forgive sins. He is an instrument of God’s grace and sits in the place of Christ. He forgives us in the name of God, not in his own name. There is no forgiveness except through the grace of God, but it is that same God who handed down this authority to his Church; Christ’s presence on earth. The words of Christ in John 20: 21-23 are unmistakable in their meaning, as are the words of Christ in Matthew 16:19 concerning binding and loosing. It is you who are following the traditions of men in denying that this is the case.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, these are parts of Article 4 The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation:

1424 It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament. In a profound sense it is also a “confession” - acknowledgment and praise - of the holiness of God and of his mercy toward sinful man.

It is called the sacrament of forgiveness, since by the priest’s sacramental absolution God grants the penitent “pardon and peace.”

It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation, because it imparts to the sinner the love of God who reconciles: “Be reconciled to God.” He who lives by God’s merciful love is ready to respond to the Lord’s call: “Go; first be reconciled to your brother.”

1441 Only God forgives sins. 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.” Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.

1456 Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: “All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly.”

1462 Forgiveness of sins brings reconciliation with God, but also with the Church. Since ancient times the bishop, visible head of a particular Church, has thus rightfully been considered to be the one who principally has the power and ministry of reconciliation: he is the moderator of the penitential discipline. Priests, his collaborators, exercise it to the extent that they have received the commission either from their bishop (or religious superior) or the Pope, according to the law of the Church.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, part of 1441 uses John 20:21-23 as a reference point.

A parallel account of John 20:21-23 is Luke 24:36-49. Both passages refer to the appearance of Jesus to His disciples after His resurrection. After His resurrection, in these passages, He is telling them what they are to be doing.

John 20:21 starts with Jesus telling His disciples to continue the work of salvation, as mentioned in Matthew 28:19-20, the great commission. John 20:22 says, And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Cited in John 14:26 and John 16:7, Jesus declares the promise of the Comforter (Holy Spirit) that is to come after His departure. Luke 24:49 says, And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. That passage cites the promise that Jesus declared to His disciples in John 14:26. Continuing with Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4-5 cites the promise of the coming of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:4 says, And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Jesus told His disciples what was to come. They were to continue the work of salvation. Because Jesus would no longer be on earth, the Holy Spirit came to guide them into all truth; John 16:13. No longer by themselves, the disciples were to continue spreading the gospel of Jesus. John 20:23 and Luke 24:46-47 share the purpose of the gospel. John 20:23 says, Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. Luke 24:46-47 says, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

That’s why Jesus gave His life and resurrected; that the only way for salvation, forgiveness of sins, and healing be directly through Him. It is directly in Jesus. Authority to forgive sins was never given to man. He declared to the disciples the terms of forgiveness that is in His gospel, to preach in His name among all the nations. Whoever accepts or rejects His gospel, their sins are either forgiven or they remain unforgiven. Ephesians 2:13,18 says, But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. God has forgiven us of our sins only in Jesus.
 
With so much emphasis in dealing with people confessing their sins to a man…their perception…

Likewise, with the sacrament of penance, if one approaches the Lord in the sacrament of confession, deliberately lies or has no intention of being penitent, that person commits a sacrilege, a great sin, just as those do who receive the Eucharist with no faith and even invalidation.

The sacrament of penance is not to be approached commonly, but with great faith that one is truly approaching Our Lord and not some man, be he a priest.
 
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, these are parts of Article 4 The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation:

1424 It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament. In a profound sense it is also a “confession” - acknowledgment and praise - of the holiness of God and of his mercy toward sinful man.

It is called the sacrament of forgiveness, since by the priest’s sacramental absolution God grants the penitent “pardon and peace.”

It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation, because it imparts to the sinner the love of God who reconciles: “Be reconciled to God.” He who lives by God’s merciful love is ready to respond to the Lord’s call: “Go; first be reconciled to your brother.”

1441 Only God forgives sins. 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.” Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.

1456 Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: “All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly.”

1462 Forgiveness of sins brings reconciliation with God, but also with the Church. Since ancient times the bishop, visible head of a particular Church, has thus rightfully been considered to be the one who principally has the power and ministry of reconciliation: he is the moderator of the penitential discipline. Priests, his collaborators, exercise it to the extent that they have received the commission either from their bishop (or religious superior) or the Pope, according to the law of the Church.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, part of 1441 uses John 20:21-23 as a reference point.

A parallel account of John 20:21-23 is Luke 24:36-49. Both passages refer to the appearance of Jesus to His disciples after His resurrection. After His resurrection, in these passages, He is telling them what they are to be doing.

John 20:21 starts with Jesus telling His disciples to continue the work of salvation, as mentioned in Matthew 28:19-20, the great commission. John 20:22 says, And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Cited in John 14:26 and John 16:7, Jesus declares the promise of the Comforter (Holy Spirit) that is to come after His departure. Luke 24:49 says, And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. That passage cites the promise that Jesus declared to His disciples in John 14:26. Continuing with Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4-5 cites the promise of the coming of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:4 says, And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Jesus told His disciples what was to come. They were to continue the work of salvation. Because Jesus would no longer be on earth, the Holy Spirit came to guide them into all truth; John 16:13. No longer by themselves, the disciples were to continue spreading the gospel of Jesus. John 20:23 and Luke 24:46-47 share the purpose of the gospel. John 20:23 says, Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. Luke 24:46-47 says, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Ok, so far.
That’s why Jesus gave His life and resurrected; that the only way for salvation, forgiveness of sins, and healing be directly through Him.
Nowhere does anything you have cited say this. This is your own private conclusion.
It is directly in Jesus. Authority to forgive sins was never given to man.
You just cited passages that say the opposite. Are you trying to make the case that the words “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” doesn’t really mean “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”?
He declared to the disciples the terms of forgiveness
Yes, those terms being “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”. It is through his Church, his visible, tangible presence on earth, that Christ forgives. You are quite correct that it is Christ who forgives, but he does this through the means of his sacraments carried out by his ordained priests. If this were not the case then the words I just quoted are meaningless.
Whoever accepts or rejects His gospel, their sins are either forgiven or they remain unforgiven.
And what does accepting His gospel mean? It means being a part of the Church which he founded and accepting the authority he gave to that Church. It is his Church that continues his saving work on earth, a major part of that being to bring God’s forgiveness to the whole world. That is why he gave the Church such authority to act in his stead. What in the world was the point of his founding a Church to begin with? That may be the real issue we should be discussing.
Ephesians 2:13,18 says, But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. God has forgiven us of our sins only in Jesus.
No one has ever argued anything to the contrary. I don’t disagree with anything you said until I get to your last paragragh. By whose authority do you come to your conclusion? Your own? Sorry, but the Church since the time of the Apostles has taught the Catholic version. It is understandable that you do not wish it to be so as your faith tradition has no such authority, but the truth remains, regardless of what one wishes were true.
 
Actually, Slovakia is traditionally of the Roman, Latin Rite Church. Parts of Western Slovakia such as Trensin have Roman inscriptions carved underneith the Trensin castle dating back to 179 A.D. It wasnt until hundreds of years later that the Eastern Byzantine State was created.

Nearly all Slovak Catholics identify themselves as Roman Catholic, but that’s not to say that there’s anything wrong with being a Byzantine Catholic, it’s just that I don’t see the chart as being completely accurate. 😉 🙂
 
just to add from being about 16 years old and now 44 I have always confessed to a priest.
 
Ok, so far.

Nowhere does anything you have cited say this. This is your own private conclusion.

You just cited passages that say the opposite. Are you trying to make the case that the words “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” doesn’t really mean “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”?

Yes, those terms being “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”. It is through his Church, his visible, tangible presence on earth, that Christ forgives. You are quite correct that it is Christ who forgives, but he does this through the means of his sacraments carried out by his ordained priests. If this were not the case then the words I just quoted are meaningless.

And what does accepting His gospel mean? It means being a part of the Church which he founded and accepting the authority he gave to that Church. It is his Church that continues his saving work on earth, a major part of that being to bring God’s forgiveness to the whole world. That is why he gave the Church such authority to act in his stead. What in the world was the point of his founding a Church to begin with? That may be the real issue we should be discussing.

No one has ever argued anything to the contrary. I don’t disagree with anything you said until I get to your last paragragh. By whose authority do you come to your conclusion? Your own? Sorry, but the Church since the time of the Apostles has taught the Catholic version. It is understandable that you do not wish it to be so as your faith tradition has no such authority, but the truth remains, regardless of what one wishes were true.
One of the aspects of biblical exegesis requires the understanding of context. It is why following the tenor within passages, chapters, books and the bible is important (when arriving to an interpretation of a given text). Finding the tenor or theme may require a look beyond the immediate context. In John 20:23, one must look beyond the immediate context to properly exegete the passage.

The chapter of John is an integration of the Books of the Gospels. Within those four gospels a common tenor is found. Each book details the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Each book details the work of salvation with which Jesus came on earth for. Although the accounts pertaining to what Jesus did are not verbatim; however, in juxtaposition, these details follow a congruous tenor throughout the four gospels. After Jesus resurrected and appeared to His disciples, He instructed to them the work of salvation (great commission) they were to continue. The accounts of the great commission are not verbatim, but the tenor of salvation is present in these four gospels; Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-48; John 20: 21-23.

Parallel context of the Books of the Gospels, specifically Luke 24:36-49 and John 20:21-23, show that Jesus is telling His disciples to go and preach salvation to the world. The preaching of salvation; whoever believes is saved, whoever doesn’t believe is damned. Whoever accepts or rejects the preaching of salvation (the gospel), either receives forgiveness or remains unforgiven. In parallel context, the disciples were being instructed to declare the terms of forgiveness (the gospel) to the world.

The purpose of the gospel is salvation through Jesus Christ. An example of that is found in Acts 8:30-37; in which, Phillip helped the eunuch understand the prophecy of Jesus’ sacrifice for sin (Isaiah 53). Acts 8:35 says, Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. That preaching, is the preaching of salvation, through Jesus. The passage in Acts 8:37 cites the eunuch as believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. John 3:16 says, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Salvation is directly through Jesus Christ; salvation from hell, forgiveness of sins, new life.

Such is the tenor found throughout scripture, believing in God, believing in Jesus. From the Old Covenant God made with Abraham because he believed in him (Genesis 15:5-6, Genesis 17:1-7). To the New Covenant God made for those who believe in Jesus (Hebrews 10:7-18, Romans 1:16-17).

Every believer who has accepted Jesus as their savior is part of the church; for the church represents the body of Jesus Christ. Ephesians 5:23 says, For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Romans 12:4-5 says, For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. As the body of Christ, His church is to continue spreading the gospel of salvation, which was first commissioned to His disciples.

The conclusion of these texts is based on exegesis of scripture. Some passages require further studying to better understand its meaning.
 
One of the aspects of biblical exegesis requires the understanding of context. It is why following the tenor within passages, chapters, books and the bible is important (when arriving to an interpretation of a given text).

The conclusion of these texts is based on exegesis of scripture. Some passages require further studying to better understand its meaning.
Well, I would say, in the CC…there is no need for further exegesis…from our 2000 year Tradition, we know and fully understand the meaning of these passages…as explained by the Church Magisterium…from Sacred Tradition…(mark-shea.com/tradition.html)…any…any) further exegesis on our part is to further our understanding.

So my question to you…why would you need further exegesis? What are you trying to understand further?
 
American Lutherans typically don’t confess with their Pastor however…

I had an especially persistent minor sin that I had trouble not repeating, so I asked my Pastor we he could officiate my confession, and I was really pleased. With a human witness to my interaction with God, I found that I had more mental fortitude to no longer sin again when the opportunity arose.

So if you’re Lutheran, perhaps badger your Paster if you have an especially tractable sin. Worked for me, and I can see how our Catholic friends think we’re missing something.
Well BenJ…👍👍👍
nd I can see how our Catholic friends think we’re missing something.
From post 53, I asked these questions of Nabooru…and either skipped them or did not want to face the answer…and he keeps coming up with reasons and rationalizations and hypothetical scenarios to deny confession:

Why did God send Nathan to David? And why is Nathan saying the absolution in Verse 13?

Or in 1Sam 15, why is Saul asking for Samuel’s forgiveness and not the Lord’s also:

Or here in Job 42, why did God not just forgive Eliphaz, but directed them to go through Job?

The question is…why did God make Eliphaz go through Job? Or why did it take sending Nathan for David to realize his sin of adultery?

Once you get through this question…then you will understand the reason for the sacrament of confession.
 
Rhema…

Problem is that Christ instituted the Church, and only one Church. We have much freedom of thought in biblical reflections/studies…but that does not mean they are orthodox.

So many times, people decide they want to depend on personal interpretation…but then they are placing themselves outside the graces of the Church…which do not lead to our own inclinations of how we look at things, but rather into the Scriptural, sacramental truth about God found in His Church.

Why would one want to go outside this…Yes, it is a discipline to always refer one’s self back to the Church for evaluation…this is what the Early Church Fathers did.

We are loved so immensely and eternally by God, we cannot come close to fanthom it. but on the other hand, He is constantly pruning us through the Cross and submission to the spirit of the Church in the Holy Spirit…to be in communion with integrity of faith. That requires the opposite direction of personal interpretation taking the place of the Church.

Refusing to draw on the truth of Christ handed down 2,000 years affirmed by all the faithful, that is truly bringing us closer to the reality of Christ and our communion and oneness with Him, is putting us outside that communion.

When we put ourselves outside the communion of His Church, it likewise brings us into other inclinations and dissensions, which are not the hallmark of faith – certitude and peace.
 
What I meant by that was if you are committing a sin over and over again, it is recommended to confess to another Christian in the church. Our church has membership counselors and elders that help members. So you can confess to your membership counselor & they can pray with you & hold you accountable. Of course, you also repent to God in prayer in private as well.
Uhhhhhh…isn’t that similar to a Catholic confessing to a priest?

Our church has membership counselors and elders that help members. So you can confess to your membership counselor & they can pray with you & hold you accountable.
 
Uhhhhhh…isn’t that similar to a Catholic confessing to a priest?

*Our church has membership counselors and elders that help members. So you can confess *to your membership counselor & they can pray with you & hold you accountable.
Well, yea it is. Not the same as confessing to a priest, but close. I didn’t say it was any different.
 
As a non catholic for 27 yrs, ( but baptized and confirmed catholic as a child), I found that the non catholic world still believes that a pastor or an elder can pronounce forgiveness ( " confess your sins to one another)., My old Christian counseler friend would say " based on your confession of this sin, I forgive you", , and that meant alot more to me than some guy quoting scripture and trying to convince you of something instead of meeting a heart issue.

But it was a ‘shadow’ of the confessional if u like , and why not deal with the real thing ( I love the sacrament )…, so like Louis Bouyeur says in his book ‘the spirit and forms of Protestantism’, that the historical faith fulfills Protestantism …,
 
I go to confession often (every fortnight or so) with an Anglo Catholic priest as my confessor - they take it very seriously, and I don’t personally consider myself Anglo Catholic - but I find it to be of enormous benefit. There is one particular sin I’ve managed to avoid for a month which until I confessed it was an extremely persistent problem (three guesses as to which one it is, gentlemen!). My confessor is as gentle a confessor as you could meet, but I find it to be one of the most profound spiritual experiences I have had since coming to Christianity.

I cannot recommend it more highly to all fellow Protestants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top