Responding to these statements

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cruxis117
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cruxis117

Guest
I’m on another forum, and a particularly nasty poster has asked me to provide what I’ll term evidence for several things which us Catholics believe (or his assumptions of what we believe.) If you guys can help me respond to this, it would be much appreciated!!
Therefore, since you claim to hold that standard (of providing evidence to my claims, he means), then support the following claims of the Roman Catholic Church, that earlier you claimed are “Sacred Tradition” and have been taught for 2000 years as you claimed, by producing the documented proof from the Apostles and first century Christians for these papist claims:
  1. Roman papal supremacy
  1. Roman papal infallibility
  1. The immaculate deception (Conception, clearly this person doesn’t know what we actually call our doctrines.)
  1. The assumption of Mary
  1. Praying to angels and spirits of the dead
  1. Auricular confession and doing penance to atone for your sins committed after confirmation
  1. Purgatory
  1. Indulgences
Therefore, if you cannot produce documented proof from the Apostles and first century Christians whereby those late arriving papist dogmas and practices are Apostolic and been taught for 2000 years as you claimed, then your claims are false, by your own standard.
So, have at it.
 
First of all, insist that this “gentleman” refrain from using the word “papist”. It is an anti-Catholic slur and should not be tolerated.

Second, try this site www.scripturecatholic.com
 
I’m on another forum, and a particularly nasty poster has asked me to provide what I’ll term evidence for several things which us Catholics believe (or his assumptions of what we believe.) If you guys can help me respond to this, it would be much appreciated!!
If you have the Catechism, every doctrine has footnotes, Bible verses and early church fathers…there is a lot on your plate, you may have to do it one topic at a time.

On the Assumption and the IC, I think the papal document declaring this would be a good resource as it traces the belief of the early church on these dogmas.

And if you prove your case, will this poster enrol in RCIA?
 
Cruxis117
  1. Roman papal supremacy
  2. Roman papal infallibility
From this ALL else flows.

Jesus founded His Church on Peter:
All four promises to Peter alone
:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could teach error? Jesus gave infallibility to His Church through Peter personally, and primacy to Peter. How much more infallibility and primacy is there?

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).
How much more infallibility and primacy is there?

Jesus, who is God, founded His Church to lead us to heaven. Jesus the Christ wrote nothing, but His Church gave us the Bible defining infallibly which writings belong therein as the Word of God. The Bible itself teaches:
The Scriptures do not have all that Christ taught us:
“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).

St John counsels us:
“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).

“We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6). Note St John’s insistence on the apostolic teaching.
 
You might just do this for your own edification, and that of possible lurkers, but this man’s heart is full of bigotry and anger, if not hatred. Notice that he demands a level of “proof” which only he determines. He has just laid a sucker’s bet for you. His mind is closed and he will not be persuaded.

Never mind your foundation - make him “prove” his. Ask him to show you where the bible teaches that it is the sole rule of faith. He cannot, because it does not.

IMO, non-Catholic forums are a waste of time, and only lead to a lack of charity. Invite him here. 😉
 
Never mind your foundation - make him “prove” his. Ask him to show you where the bible teaches that it is the sole rule of faith. He cannot, because it does not.
Excellent idea. Why should WE always be the ones who have to “prove”? After all, we were here first. 🙂
 
  1. The immaculate deception (Conception, clearly this person doesn’t know what we actually call our doctrines.)
Don’t kid yourself, my friend. He knows perfectly well that the correct term is Immaculate Conception. That is an anti-Catholic :mad:slur from way back.
You have a real :banghead: piece of work on your hands.
Tell him to come over here, if he thinks he is so:rolleyes: smart. He’ll end up
http://bestsmileys.com/eek/14.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/paranoid/2.gif http://bestsmileys.com/scared/8.gif.

His kind always do.
 
Hello everyone 🙂

First, I agree with all of your statements. Yes, I know it’s a waste of time. Yes, I know that this man has acted (in my opinion) incorrigible. And yes, I know that he does use this “papist” (sounds like paper worship 😛 ) against our Catholic brothers and sisters. However, I’ve been refuting a colleague of his in the forums, who has insisted that I am wrong about how we view justification/salvation, even though I’ve shown him documents which say otherwise. I first requested evidence from this first poster I was dealing with, for his rather unbelievable claims. Then, this poster whose questions I’ve shown you decided to chirp in to get myself on the defensive. He believes that I must provide evidence for our “claims”, I must apply my standard to myself. This is why I’ve asked you all for help.
I wish to merely show this fellow that I’ll actually take the time to show him that I’m consistent and to correct his false interpretation of the Church which Jesus Christ founded on Kepha (AKA Petros AKA Peter 😉 ). And even if I fail in correcting his understanding, He will be less persuaded to try and deal with my person. I know that the Catechism does have these footnotes, but if you guys know of anything which can help me to answer his post faster (I told him I’d have it in a week or so), it would be much appreciated.

Peace be with you!
 
It always puzzles me as to why people who cannot answer questions get into “debates” with various hard-core anti-Catholics and then come here expecting others to prepare responses for them.

My response is for you to study and learn until you are at the point where you **know **in your heart and in your mind the answers to these and other questions on points of doctrine and *then *engage in debate with these types of people.

And, BTW, yes this person absolutely does know what the name of the Catholic doctrines are. His deliberate use of derogatory terms such as “immaculate deception” tells me everything I need to know about this person. There is NO argument you can give, NO explanation, and NO proof that will satisfy this person. They have already made up their mind and whatever you say to them will be attacked, distorted, and some obscure scripture or past atrocity thrown back at you as evidence of the Church’s deceit and corruption.

**You would probably to better to go outside and argue with a fence post.**Truly, if it were me I would not “debate” this person at all. They have established from the beginning a set of “ground rules” that makes this a one-sided playing field. This statement is not true and yet this other person has established this as the criteria by which you must abide. Uh, no way: Therefore, if you cannot produce documented proof from the Apostles and first century Christians whereby those late arriving papist dogmas and practices are Apostolic and been taught for 2000 years as you claimed, then your claims are false, by your own standard.

You’ve been set up. And, frankly you can’t see it which is another indication that you are not prepared to “debate” this person.

Please get some good, solid Catholic apologetics books and study them. Formulate your own answers to these questions, and then you will be prepared to give responses when asked.
 
Hello everyone 🙂

I’ve been refuting a colleague of his in the forums, who has insisted that I am wrong about how we view justification/salvation, even though I’ve shown him documents which say otherwise. I first requested evidence from this first poster I was dealing with, for his rather unbelievable claims. Then, this poster whose questions I’ve shown you decided to chirp in to get myself on the defensive. He believes that I must provide evidence for our “claims”, I must apply my standard to myself.
So, tell him that the topic at hand is justification and salvation, and these other items are off topic and that he should start his own thread because you will be contining your conversation with this other person and will not be sidetracked by his shenanigans.
 
I want to take a moment to examine a statement that this guy (from the other forum) made, and provided for us in Cruxis’ OP:

“Therefore, if you cannot produce documented proof from the Apostles and first century Christians whereby those late arriving papist dogmas and practices are Apostolic and been taught for 2000 years as you claimed, then your claims are false, by your own standard.”

Having been in these kinds of discussions before, I presume that this person is accusing the Catholic Church as having fabricated certain doctrines, and he points to the date in which a particular doctrine was officially defined by the Church as the date of origin for the belief.

But one must remember that one of the ways by which God provides the Church with revelation is through the process of sensus fidelium (“the sense of the faithful”). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_fidelium As you can see from the description, sensus fidelium is given to us by God in a process that is initially undocumented. In other words, this particular type of revelation does not initially come to us in a written format (such as an epistle from the Bible) but is rather infused in the hearts and minds of all the faithful. Because it is not clearly expressed in Sacred Scripture, it is an aspect of Sacred Tradition.

We also recognize that not everything taught by the Apostles made it into written format in the 1st Century. They taught through both writing and oral format (for example, St. Paul clearly admits as much in 2Thess 2:15, as does St. John in John 21:25). The material which they wrote became the New Testament and therefore added to what is considered Sacred Scripture. The teachings that did not make it into writing (or at least not until a later period in catechisms and Church councils) is considered Sacred Tradition.

Over time, the Church is sometimes compelled to record and define beliefs that initially came to us by sensus fidelium / Sacred Tradition, and this usually happens to quell heresy or divisive debate. But it is wrong to look at the date in which the doctrine was formulated and documented, and then declare that no one believed in what it said prior to that date. Given the nature of sensus fidelium / Sacred Tradition, it “arrives on the scene” without much, if any, written documentation.

The poster wants “documented proof” from either “the Apostles or First Century Christians” to establish the validity of certain Catholic doctrines. Furthermore he states that If such 1st Century documentation does not exist then the claim that the Ancient Christians believed such doctrines “is false.”

In response to this, I bring up another doctrine of the faith that is embraced by Catholicism, Protestantism, and the various Orthodox Christians: the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. As you know, this doctrine states that there is one God made up of three, and only three, divine persons: the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Moreover, this doctrine states that whereas the persons the Holy Trinity are fully and completely united as one God, each is also (at the same time) completely distinct from one another. No where does the Bible teach this, so this is not a doctrine from Sacred Scripture (and if anyone says otherwise, tell them to post it on a SDA website, Mormon website or a Jehovah’s Witnesses’ website and see how far they get; each of these groups rejects the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity for the simple fact that it is not clearly found in the Bible).

Furthermore, to my knowledge, there is no clear documentation of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity from any First Century Christian. It is not until the 2nd Century and after that we see* written* elaborations on the nature of the Trinity popping up in patristic writings (for example Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.) and it was not until the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) that we see such elaborations dealt with in a doctrinal way.

In light of all this, if I apply the poster’s requirements for the Catholic doctrines he mentioned (Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc.) to the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, I would have to conclude that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is just another “late arriving papist dogma” which was not truly believed by 1st Century Christians. So if the poster rejects Catholic doctrines due to a lack of 1st Century written documentation, he must likewise reject the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity for the exact same reason. If he does not reject the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity then he displays a double-standard which is unjustly biased against the Catholic Faith.
 
  1. Roman papal supremacy
Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ’s Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko)* my* lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko)my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.
 
  1. Roman papal infallibility
Jesus reveals the infallible nature of the Church when he declares, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." What does this passage mean? There are two possible interpretations. First, if God reciprocates the binding and loosing of Church on earth with an identical binding or loosing in heaven, then the binding and loosing done on earth must of necessity be free from all error. If this were not so, God would have put himself in the impossible situation of affirming that which is not true. A second interpretation would be that the authority of the church is to carry out the will and decisions of God upon earth as they have been established in heaven. This is in perfect accord with the way Jesus instructed us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). Thus, the Church must either be prevented from teaching error in order that God may ratify its decisions in heaven or the Church must be proclaiming here below those things that are already true in heaven. Either way, the decisions and actions of the Church can be seen to be infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals. Anything less would make Jesus a liar for He also declared, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) and “I am with you always till the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)

More food for thought:

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus not give the Counselor or did the Counselor simply fail to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”
 
The immaculate deception
Mary – Full of Grace (kecharitomene)

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.
 
Praying to angels and spirits of the dead
Prayer to the Saints Proved From Scripture

1. Jesus teaches from the Old Testament****

“Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” (Mark 12:26-27)

In this teaching, Jesus tells us plainly that the Father is the God of the living.

2. Speaking with the “Dead” - Jesus teaches by parable

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”(Luke 16:19-31)

In this parable, Jesus has two of the “dead” characters in his story talking with one another, and one of the “dead” men intercedes on behalf of his living relatives.

3. Speaking with the “Dead” - Jesus teaches by personal example

“After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.” (Matthew 17:1-3)

At the transfiguration, Jesus was talking with two “dead” people, Moses and Elijah. They’re actually alive, though.****

4. Speaking to the dead – Peter teaches by example

“Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called the believers and the widows and presented her to them alive.” (Acts 9:40-41)

5. Those in Heaven Hear Our Prayers - John teaches through prophetic revelation****

“He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” (Revelation 5:7-8)

The 24 elders in heaven are men, and notice that they each have a golden bowl full of the prayers of the saints. That’s us since we’re all saints! So, how did they get hold of our prayers in order to offer them to God?

“Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne.” (Revelation 8:3)

Here, an angel also offers our prayers along with incense. ****
 
Auricular confession and doing penance to atone for your sins committed after confirmation
Confession and Forgiveness of Sin via the Priesthood Proved from Scripture

Some people object to the Sacrament of Reconciliation (commonly called “Confession”) on the basis that they only need to confess their sins directly to God rather than to a priest. Is this perspective correct? Let’s see what the Bible has to say.

Leviticus 5:5-6
5 " 'When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned 6 and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Notice that the Word of God says, “the priest shall make atonement.” Clearly in the Old Testament, the priesthood existed to offer sacrifices and make atonement for the sins committed by the people. Does this idea continue in the New Testament?

Hebrews 10:1
1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.

Here the author of Hebrews instructs us that the Old Testament prefigures and foreshadows New Testament truths; the Old is revealed more fully in the New. This seems to suggest that the role of the priest (ie, making atonement) as described in Leviticus should reveal something to us about the New Testament priesthood. So, what does the New Testament teach us about confession of sin?

1 John 1:9
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

We should confess our sins, and God will forgive us, but do we confess our sins to God alone? No!

James 5:13-16
13 Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. 14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.

Here the word of God tells us to call the elders (the Greek word is presbuteroi, or “presbyter”, from which the English word “priest” is derived). So, in this context, James is telling us to send for the priests who will pray over someone who is sick, and if he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Recalling the passage from Leviticus above, we see there is a strong parallel between the priests of the Old Testament who made atonement for sin and the presbyters or priests of the New Testament to whom we confess sins for forgiveness. But this sounds like blasphemy! Can men really forgive sins? This same question is asked in the New Testament.

Mark 2:5-7
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Who can forgive sins but God alone? This question is often asked by those who seek to deny the sacrament of confession. However, note that this question is asked by the scribes who did not accept Jesus. Those who quote this passage find themselves on the side of those who rejected the Messiah. There’s more to the story, however; let’s consider the same incident from the book of Matthew.

Matthew 9:1-7
1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” 4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

The Bible teaches that God had given the authority to forgive sins “to men”. Note that this is not “to a man” but “to men” – plural. So, it is not only Jesus who has authority to forgive sins – “men” have this authority, also. This sounds like a “hard teaching”…is there confirmation of this in the Bible?

(cont.)
 
John 20:21-23
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

How did God send Jesus into the world? With the authority to forgive sins as we saw in Matthew 9:6. How does Jesus send the Apostles? In the same way that the Father had sent Him…with the authority to forgive sins as we have just seen in John 20:23. How could the Apostles obey the commandment of Jesus to forgive sins unless they heard these sins confessed? Thus, scripture records that people did confess their sins aloud.

Acts 19:18 (New International Version)
18Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds.

Finally, we find that the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 2:10
10To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (KJV)

And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. (Douay Rheims)

Can we go directly to God for the forgiveness of our sins? Of course, but the scriptures just presented suggest that the normative means of forgiveness is by confession to a priest, and while it is true that only God can forgive sins, the Bible teaches that He has chosen to do so through the ordained priesthood and the Sacrament of Reconciliation that He Himself instituted.
 
Purgatory
Bible Verses Supporting the Doctrine of Purgatory

2 Maccabees 12:42-46
Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; or if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

Even those Christians who deny that Maccabees 1 & 2 belong are inspired and belong in the canon of the Old Testament must admit that this passage reveals that the Jews believed that that the living may pray for the dead and make sacrifices for them in order that they might be freed from the sins they had committed. It was with this cultural understanding as a backdrop that the following New Testament verses come into focus.

Luke 12:42-48
The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. "That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”

Notice that there are not two but three categories of servants in this parable: 1) the “wise and faithful manager” who is rewarded (heaven); 2) the unfaithful servant who knows his master’s will but does not do it and who is “cut to pieces and assigned a place with the unbelievers (hell)l; and 3) the one “who does not know and does things deserving punishment.” This final servant is beaten with “few blows” (purgatory).

1 Corinthians 3:10-15
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

1 Peter 1:7
These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

Articles on Purgatory

Purgatory

catholic.com/library/purgatory.asp

Purgatory
By Rev. William G. Most
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9204chap.asp

**PURGATORY IN ALL BUT NAME **
By W. ROBERT ANFILL
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801fea2.asp

Is Purgatory Found in the Bible?
By Christine Pinheiro and Kenneth J. Howell
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp

Purgatory? Where Is That in the Bible?
By Mark P. Shea
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea2.asp

Explaining Purgatory from a New Testament Perspectiveby Victor R. Claveau
freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2033423/posts

How to Argue the Existence of Purgatory
By Jason Evert
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010sbs.asp

How to Explain Purgatory to Protestants
by James Akin
ewtn.com/library/answers/how2purg.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top