SPLIT: Confession not biblical

[Shirtless]

You can find a Catholic priest to support or oppose any position. And I mean any position. The real difficulty, here, however, is that the church has imposed the obligation of confession on the faithful when there is absolutely no scriptural basis for such a requirement.

First of all, there is no example given in the Bible of one-on-one confession. John 20:23 is often cited by the church, but that merely establishes that the priest may, if requested, forgive someone’s sins. Of course, if you want the priest to forgive your sins, you will need to tell him what they are, but the passage cannot logically be read as making confession to a priest the sole means of obtaining forgiveness of sin.

James 5:16 is likewise unavailing. Confess your faults to one another, it says. That means, if I offend you, I am to apologize, and vice versa. There is nothing in James 5:16 that mandates confession to a priest.

Confess your sins to God and to those whom you have wronged. If you want to talk to the priest, fine, but it is not mandatory.

The church can be wrong or at least change its mind. When I was growing up in the 1960’s, I was taught that “eating a large piece of meat on Friday” was a mortal sin, worthy of eternal damnation in Hell. Wow. Right up there with ramming a plane into the World Trade Center! Then, oops, eating meat on Friday is okay (although we are supposed to commemorate Friday in some other way, since Jesus died on a Friday).

Do you think all those pre-1964 meat eaters are still burning in Hell while we have steak?

Oh, and what about all the unbaptized babies who, through no fault of their own or their parents, died without being baptized? Can you imagine the torment to grieving parents when they were told that their child was not in heaven, but in some vague place called limbo? Oops, the Pope came out with a statement debunking limbo.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

You can find a Catholic priest to support or oppose any position. And I mean any position. The real difficulty, here, however, is that the church has imposed the obligation of confession on the faithful when there is absolutely no scriptural basis for such a requirement.

First of all, there is no example given in the Bible of one-on-one confession. John 20:23 is often cited by the church, but that merely establishes that the priest may, if requested, forgive someone’s sins. Of course, if you want the priest to forgive your sins, you will need to tell him what they are, but the passage cannot logically be read as making confession to a priest the sole means of obtaining forgiveness of sin.

James 5:16 is likewise unavailing. Confess your faults to one another, it says. That means, if I offend you, I am to apologize, and vice versa. There is nothing in James 5:16 that mandates confession to a priest.

Confess your sins to God and to those whom you have wronged. If you want to talk to the priest, fine, but it is not mandatory.

The church can be wrong or at least change its mind. When I was growing up in the 1960’s, I was taught that “eating a large piece of meat on Friday” was a mortal sin, worthy of eternal damnation in Hell. Wow. Right up there with ramming a plane into the World Trade Center! Then, oops, eating meat on Friday is okay (although we are supposed to commemorate Friday in some other way, since Jesus died on a Friday).

Do you think all those pre-1964 meat eaters are still burning in Hell while we have steak?

Oh, and what about all the unbaptized babies who, through no fault of their own or their parents, died without being baptized? Can you imagine the torment to grieving parents when they were told that their child was not in heaven, but in some vague place called limbo? Oops, the Pope came out with a statement debunking limbo.

Confessing to a priest is indeed mandatory.

That is, if you are obedient to the Magisterium. There are names for those who aren’t.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You can find a Catholic priest to support or oppose any position. And I mean any position. The real difficulty, here, however, is that the church has imposed the obligation of confession on the faithful when there is absolutely no scriptural basis for such a requirement.

First of all, there is no example given in the Bible of one-on-one confession. John 20:23 is often cited by the church, but that merely establishes that the priest may, if requested, forgive someone’s sins. Of course, if you want the priest to forgive your sins, you will need to tell him what they are, but the passage cannot logically be read as making confession to a priest the sole means of obtaining forgiveness of sin.

James 5:16 is likewise unavailing. Confess your faults to one another, it says. That means, if I offend you, I am to apologize, and vice versa. There is nothing in James 5:16 that mandates confession to a priest.

The Roman Catholic Church in its teachings and practices is not Sola Scriptura. I am surprised that someone with the identifier Catholic would not already understand this very fundamental distinction between Catholicism and other Christian faiths.

Confess your sins to God and to those whom you have wronged. If you want to talk to the priest, fine, but it is not mandatory.

If the sins are serious, it is indeed mandatory, or one is not in communion with the Church, nor prepared for Eucharist.

The church can be wrong or at least change its mind.

Not on essential moral, doctrinal, and sacramental teachings it can’t. The example of limbo is not an equivalent comparison to the sacramental confession of sin.

 

[Ben_F]

You can find a Catholic priest to support or oppose any position. And I mean any position. The real difficulty, here, however, is that the church has imposed the obligation of confession on the faithful when there is absolutely no scriptural basis for such a requirement.

First of all, there is no example given in the Bible of one-on-one confession. John 20:23 is often cited by the church, but that merely establishes that the priest may, if requested, forgive someone’s sins. Of course, if you want the priest to forgive your sins, you will need to tell him what they are, but the passage cannot logically be read as making confession to a priest the sole means of obtaining forgiveness of sin.

James 5:16 is likewise unavailing. Confess your faults to one another, it says. That means, if I offend you, I am to apologize, and vice versa. There is nothing in James 5:16 that mandates confession to a priest.

Confess your sins to God and to those whom you have wronged. If you want to talk to the priest, fine, but it is not mandatory.

The church can be wrong or at least change its mind. When I was growing up in the 1960’s, I was taught that “eating a large piece of meat on Friday” was a mortal sin, worthy of eternal damnation in Hell. Wow. Right up there with ramming a plane into the World Trade Center! Then, oops, eating meat on Friday is okay (although we are supposed to commemorate Friday in some other way, since Jesus died on a Friday).

Do you think all those pre-1964 meat eaters are still burning in Hell while we have steak?

Oh, and what about all the unbaptized babies who, through no fault of their own or their parents, died without being baptized? Can you imagine the torment to grieving parents when they were told that their child was not in heaven, but in some vague place called limbo? Oops, the Pope came out with a statement debunking limbo.

Why would Jesus go to all the trouble of training His Aposltles? Why would He give them this authority, which no others received? Why would He tell his Aposltles that what they declare on Earth that He would declare in Heaven? I can think of only one reason. He wanted His Church to do His work after He ascended to His Father. The problem of sin exists. He knew it would exist after He left earth. There´s no doubt in my mind, that He wants us to confess our sins to His appointed Priests and Bishops. Nowhere in the Bible does it explain what to do with the problem of sin except in this manner. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[Shirtless]

Why would Jesus go to all the trouble of training His Aposltles? Why would He give them this authority, which no others received? Why would He tell his Aposltles that what they declare on Earth that He would declare in Heaven? I can think of only one reason. He wanted His Church to do His work after He ascended to His Father. The problem of sin exists. He knew it would exist after He left earth. There´s no doubt in my mind, that He wants us to confess our sins to His appointed Priests and Bishops. Nowhere in the Bible does it explain what to do with the problem of sin except in this manner. God bless:thumbsup:

Take a look at Matthew 6:12. Jesus is reciting the “Our Father” (“Lord’s Prayer”) and encourages us to pray to God for the forgiveness of our sins, and to forgive those who have offended us. Is Jesus wrong when He suggests that we can obtain forgiveness of sins by praying directly to God?

I do not deny the authority and ability of priests to forgive sins, but I do not think that Jesus intended the authority in John 20:23 to be the exclusive means by which to obtain forgiveness.

Yes, I suppose there is a name for a person who presumes to call on the magesterium to support its assertions. The word once frequently used was heretic. Is the mere attempt to engage in a good faith discussion and analysis to be branded as heresy? If so, then what is the purpose of having a forum? Is it merely to deliver the diktats from on high? What shall we do with persons who refuse to conform? Shall we burn them at the sake? That is what the church did to Joan of Arc (though it later declared her a saint). Or maybe we should stretch them on the rack until they repent? The Catholic Church threatened Galileo with the rack for daring to suggest that the earth revolves around the sun. Oh wait, on October 31, 1992, Pope John Paul II apologized for that too.

 

[You]

You can find a Catholic priest to support or oppose any position. And I mean any position. The real difficulty, here, however, is that the church has imposed the obligation of confession on the faithful when there is absolutely no scriptural basis for such a requirement.

First of all, there is no example given in the Bible of one-on-one confession. John 20:23 is often cited by the church, but that merely establishes that the priest may, if requested, forgive someone’s sins. Of course, if you want the priest to forgive your sins, you will need to tell him what they are, but the passage cannot logically be read as making confession to a priest the sole means of obtaining forgiveness of sin.

James 5:16 is likewise unavailing. Confess your faults to one another, it says. That means, if I offend you, I am to apologize, and vice versa. There is nothing in James 5:16 that mandates confession to a priest.

Confess your sins to God and to those whom you have wronged. If you want to talk to the priest, fine, but it is not mandatory.

The church can be wrong or at least change its mind. When I was growing up in the 1960’s, I was taught that “eating a large piece of meat on Friday” was a mortal sin, worthy of eternal damnation in Hell. Wow. Right up there with ramming a plane into the World Trade Center! Then, oops, eating meat on Friday is okay (although we are supposed to commemorate Friday in some other way, since Jesus died on a Friday).

Do you think all those pre-1964 meat eaters are still burning in Hell while we have steak?

Oh, and what about all the unbaptized babies who, through no fault of their own or their parents, died without being baptized? Can you imagine the torment to grieving parents when they were told that their child was not in heaven, but in some vague place called limbo? Oops, the Pope came out with a statement debunking limbo.

The bible is one part of sacred tradition. The church wrote the bible and the church always, to my knowledge, practiced confession in some form or other.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Take a look at Matthew 6:12. Jesus is reciting the “Our Father” (“Lord’s Prayer”) and encourages us to pray to God for the forgiveness of our sins, and to forgive those who have offended us. Is Jesus wrong when He suggests that we can obtain forgiveness of sins by praying directly to God?

I do not deny the authority and ability of priests to forgive sins, but I do not think that Jesus intended the authority in John 20:23 to be the exclusive means by which to obtain forgiveness.

Yes, I suppose there is a name for a person who presumes to call on the magesterium to support its assertions. The word once frequently used was heretic. Is the mere attempt to engage in a good faith discussion and analysis to be branded as heresy? If so, then what is the purpose of having a forum? Is it merely to deliver the diktats from on high? What shall we do with persons who refuse to conform? Shall we burn them at the sake? That is what the church did to Joan of Arc (though it later declared her a saint). Or maybe we should stretch them on the rack until they repent? The Catholic Church threatened Galileo with the rack for daring to suggest that the earth revolves around the sun. Oh wait, on October 31, 1992, Pope John Paul II apologized for that too.

And your authority is greater than that of the Magisterium because…??

Curiosity begs the question as to why anyone would call himself Catholic, while adhering to Protestant beliefs.

 

[haroldcrews]

Shirtless, believe it or not your interpretation of Scripture is not binding on anyone including yourself. The Bible doesn’t teach anything. There is the profoundest wisdom found in Scripture but it is passive. One can ‘learn’ what is true or what is untrue from Scripture. Therefore the determinative factor, the teacher, is the Holy Spirit. The Teaching Authourity of the Holy Spirit is to be found in the Catholic Church. That much was promised by the Lord when He stated that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

Do you deny or accept that Confession or Reconciliation is a Sacrament? In your opinion is it the normal means by which sins are forgiven? The Church doesn’t teach that it is the only way for sins to be forgiven. Additionally eating meat on Fridays is a discipline of the Church which Catholics are bound to obey. Intentional violation of the discipline is a sin absent good reason. Eating meat on a day of abstinence would not be a sin if you had forgotten that it was Friday for instance. And if someone including those who sinfully violate a Church discipline die outside the state of grace then presumably they are in hell. That would include people who refuse to confess mortal sins out of pridefully believing they know better than the Church.

Putting out instances in which the Church arguably failed to live fully to its teachings hardly invalidates those teachings. The purpose of the forum is not to dispute the teachings of the Church but to proclaim Christ, His Church and her teachings to the world.

 

[zz912]

Take a look at Matthew 6:12. Jesus is reciting the “Our Father” (“Lord’s Prayer”) and encourages us to pray to God for the forgiveness of our sins, and to forgive those who have offended us. Is Jesus wrong when He suggests that we can obtain forgiveness of sins by praying directly to God?

I do not deny the authority and ability of priests to forgive sins, but I do not think that Jesus intended the authority in John 20:23 to be the exclusive means by which to obtain forgiveness.

Yes, I suppose there is a name for a person who presumes to call on the magesterium to support its assertions. The word once frequently used was heretic. Is the mere attempt to engage in a good faith discussion and analysis to be branded as heresy? If so, then what is the purpose of having a forum? Is it merely to deliver the diktats from on high? What shall we do with persons who refuse to conform? Shall we burn them at the sake? That is what the church did to Joan of Arc (though it later declared her a saint). Or maybe we should stretch them on the rack until they repent? The Catholic Church threatened Galileo with the rack for daring to suggest that the earth revolves around the sun. Oh wait, on October 31, 1992, Pope John Paul II apologized for that too.

Being arrogant and condescending is an ugly mixture. Additionally, you can look pretty silly if you have your facts wrong.

Why don’t you try rewording your questions and opinions with some better manners. Questions are always welcome. Nasty comments questioning the validity of the Church is not welcome.

 

[Ben_F]

Take a look at Matthew 6:12. Jesus is reciting the “Our Father” (“Lord’s Prayer”) and encourages us to pray to God for the forgiveness of our sins, and to forgive those who have offended us. Is Jesus wrong when He suggests that we can obtain forgiveness of sins by praying directly to God?

I do not deny the authority and ability of priests to forgive sins, but I do not think that Jesus intended the authority in John 20:23 to be the exclusive means by which to obtain forgiveness.

Yes, I suppose there is a name for a person who presumes to call on the magesterium to support its assertions. The word once frequently used was heretic. Is the mere attempt to engage in a good faith discussion and analysis to be branded as heresy? If so, then what is the purpose of having a forum? Is it merely to deliver the diktats from on high? What shall we do with persons who refuse to conform? Shall we burn them at the sake? That is what the church did to Joan of Arc (though it later declared her a saint). Or maybe we should stretch them on the rack until they repent? The Catholic Church threatened Galileo with the rack for daring to suggest that the earth revolves around the sun. Oh wait, on October 31, 1992, Pope John Paul II apologized for that too.

When I get to the fourth petition of the Our Father, I can almost hear Him saying. I already have. Now go to my chosen ones to make a good confession. This is a prayer and I will answer your prayer. This is not a confession. Have you heard me absolve you yet? You will through my priest, when you have confessed. My Grandmother was a Southern Baptist and never confessed her sins in her life. She prayed, however, almost constantly. I believe that she´s in Heaven now. How? I believe through the prayers of the Church. God´s infinite mercy never let´s a sincere person be lost. She followed her conscience. Her conscience, however was in err. All of us will finally know the truth about confession and every other conflict in doctrine on the other side of life. If your conscience leads you to believe that there is other ways to confess, then I´ll pray that one day you will be enlightened. You pray for me also. ´My conscience has erred many times. No racks or burning for either of us. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[TommyWommy]

…the church has imposed the obligation of confession on the faithful when there is absolutely no scriptural basis for such a requirement.

The Scriptures are not the “basis.” Church teaching is the “basis.” The Church’s authority predates the Scriptures, and the Scriptures come from the Church, not vice versa. The Church teaching on confession in no way contradicts Scripture. When you first turn to the Scriptures to find “proof texts” you are placing the cart before the horse. Scripture is an authority, but it is not the only or final authority. The Church gets the final say, like it did when it assembled the Bible. Otherwise, we have a million popes running around. We need the Church like the Ethiopian Eunuch needed Philip in Acts 8 (a Spirit-directed, apostolic, authoritative interpretation).

Don’t be afraid to trust Church teachings. By doing so, you are placing your trust in Christ who set things up this way. Also, remember that the sacrament of Confession is the regular way of forgiveness. The Church does teach that it is possible for people to be forgiven even when the Sacrament is not available to them. But if you can get there, you should go, because Christ is waiting for you there to speak His words through the priest, “You are forgiven.”

 

[Church_Militant]

You can find a Catholic priest to support or oppose any position. And I mean any position. The real difficulty, here, however, is that the church has imposed the obligation of confession on the faithful when there is absolutely no scriptural basis for such a requirement.

First of all, there is no example given in the Bible of one-on-one confession. John 20:23 is often cited by the church, but that merely establishes that the priest may, if requested, forgive someone’s sins. Of course, if you want the priest to forgive your sins, you will need to tell him what they are, but the passage cannot logically be read as making confession to a priest the sole means of obtaining forgiveness of sin.

James 5:16 is likewise unavailing. Confess your faults to one another, it says. That means, if I offend you, I am to apologize, and vice versa. There is nothing in James 5:16 that mandates confession to a priest.

Confess your sins to God and to those whom you have wronged. If you want to talk to the priest, fine, but it is not mandatory.

Here’s an article that I wrote on my blog. You allege no scriptural basis… I believe the scriptures prove you wrong.
** Catholic Confession**

    In my opinion the passages are clear as in this case.

John 20:21-23 is so important.
“21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

My thinking is that if our Lord had not intended to make the Sacrament of Reconciliation a means of grace unto salvation, then why in the world would He have made this statement and given both this power and command to the presbyters of His church?

James 5:16 & 1st John 1:9 also offer us more insight into this doctrine.

James 5: 14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. 16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

1st John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

All these passages expressly speak of confession of sins and so I have to ask, then just how will those outside the Catholic Church explain the obvious link between these passages.

Here is a further outline for study on this sacrament courtesy of John Martignoni and his Bible Christian Society

Confession

A. Confess your sins to men
~ Leviticus 5:5-6 (“All scripture…”: 2 Tim 3:16)
(Law is a shadow: Hebrews 10:1)
~ 1 John 1:9
~ James 5:16

B. Can men forgive sins?
~ Only God has the power to forgive sins but He exercises this power through men.
~ Mark 2:7
~ Matthew 9:1-8
When the crowds saw it, they were afraid , and the glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

• Matthew 9:8

To me, the scriptures are clear, and I can’t help but praise and thank God for His wisdom and mercy that (knowing the weaknesses of mankind) equipped His church with the means to help His children overcome our weaknesses and sins.

The church can be wrong or at least change its mind. When I was growing up in the 1960’s, I was taught that “eating a large piece of meat on Friday” was a mortal sin, worthy of eternal damnation in Hell. Wow. Right up there with ramming a plane into the World Trade Center! Then, oops, eating meat on Friday is okay (although we are supposed to commemorate Friday in some other way, since Jesus died on a Friday).

Do you think all those pre-1964 meat eaters are still burning in Hell while we have steak?

I grew up in that era too…but don’t recall any such teaching. Disobedience is sin…but they also taught us that it had to be a grave matter. That never changed. The Church also now teaches that other forms of penance are also acceptable, which makes sense for those who might be Vegetarians or something, or perhaps feel that abstinence is not enough. Scriptures About Penance
"I Find No Sacraments In the Bible" he said.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Take a look at Matthew 6:12. Jesus is reciting the “Our Father” (“Lord’s Prayer”) and encourages us to pray to God for the forgiveness of our sins, and to forgive those who have offended us. Is Jesus wrong when He suggests that we can obtain forgiveness of sins by praying directly to God?

Well, when you put it like that, you are saying that it is either/or. Fact is, the priest is a sacramental representation of the Person of Christ. Going to confession is not just for the forgiveness of sins. It is for Penance and Reconciliation also and a striving to turn forward to God. Not to mention, the humility involved is pretty “hardcore” as us kiddos put it.

I do not deny the authority and ability of priests to forgive sins, but I do not think that Jesus intended the authority in John 20:23 to be the exclusive means by which to obtain forgiveness.

Nor did He mean that. You misinterpret the defense, especially in James. Read that whole paragraph in James and you will see who has authority to do stuff in the Church.

Yes, I suppose there is a name for a person who presumes to call on the magesterium to support its assertions. The word once frequently used was heretic. Is the mere attempt to engage in a good faith discussion and analysis to be branded as heresy? If so, then what is the purpose of having a forum? Is it merely to deliver the diktats from on high? What shall we do with persons who refuse to conform? Shall we burn them at the sake? That is what the church did to Joan of Arc (though it later declared her a saint). Or maybe we should stretch them on the rack until they repent? The Catholic Church threatened Galileo with the rack for daring to suggest that the earth revolves around the sun. Oh wait, on October 31, 1992, Pope John Paul II apologized for that too.

It is one thing to ask and quite another to say “it is not mandatory.” I was following your sincerity until that one statement. You have no privilege to proclaim that.

People did those things. Not the Church. Yes, Catholics sin. This is no surprise for anybody… Especially me. The worst of the worst.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yes, Catholics sin. This is no surprise for anybody… Especially me. The worst of the worst.

No you’re not…I am.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

You can find a Catholic priest to support or oppose any position. And I mean any position. The real difficulty, here, however, is that the church has imposed the obligation of confession on the faithful when there is absolutely no scriptural basis for such a requirement.

Here are some. I will highlight Confession, Penance and Reconciliation for you, respectively. But also, notice one more thing: the title of the book of the bible.

Acts **of the Apostles **19

18 Many of those who had become believers came forward and openly acknowledged their former practices.

19 Moreover, a large number of those who had practiced magic collected their books and burned them in public.

20 Thus did the word of the Lord continue to spread with influence and power.

First of all, there is no example given in the Bible of one-on-one confession. John 20:23 is often cited by the church, but that merely establishes that the priest may, if requested, forgive someone’s sins. Of course, if you want the priest to forgive your sins, you will need to tell him what they are, but the passage cannot logically be read as making confession to a priest the sole means of obtaining forgiveness of sin.

What does “may, if requested, forgive someone’s sins” mean? Since you want the Bible to be so precise, where did Jesus later say, “This is just in case someone looks for you for the forgiveness of sins. Other than that, no worries”? In any case, that is not the sole means of obtaining forgiveness of sins. Just for mortal sins.

James 5:16 is likewise unavailing. Confess your faults to one another, it says. That means, if I offend you, I am to apologize, and vice versa. There is nothing in James 5:16 that mandates confession to a priest.

Look around James 5:16. You will see who people are supposed to call for things.

In any case, the Church mandates it. Romans 13:1-2 should shed some light on why that should be a legitimate reason to believe it.

Confess your sins to God and to those whom you have wronged. If you want to talk to the priest, fine, but it is not mandatory.

This is the part that proves the insincerity. Well, for me anyway… Again, it is one thing to ask and I followed your honesty up to this part.

It is a Church precept. GET OVER IT! It is more like a mother telling her son to take his vitamins. Except this vitamin will heal your soul and actually put you in a state of grace. State of grace… Good. You act like it will kill you to make a trip to the confessional down the block and get things straight with you and God… or maybe much further but you get my drift.

The church can be wrong or at least change its mind. When I was growing up in the 1960’s, I was taught that “eating a large piece of meat on Friday” was a mortal sin, worthy of eternal damnation in Hell. Wow. Right up there with ramming a plane into the World Trade Center! Then, oops, eating meat on Friday is okay (although we are supposed to commemorate Friday in some other way, since Jesus died on a Friday).

This is not about wrong or right. This is a tradition with a little “t”. Doctrines come from Traditions with a big “T”.

Do you think all those pre-1964 meat eaters are still burning in Hell while we have steak?

Nope… See my previous response.

Oh, and what about all the unbaptized babies who, through no fault of their own or their parents, died without being baptized? Can you imagine the torment to grieving parents when they were told that their child was not in heaven, but in some vague place called limbo? Oops, the Pope came out with a statement debunking limbo.

Again, that was not doctrine. Oops, the Pope knew the difference between official doctrine and conjecture.

 

[mark_a]

You can find a Catholic priest to support or oppose any position. And I mean any position. The real difficulty, here, however, is that the church has imposed the obligation of confession on the faithful when there is absolutely no scriptural basis for such a requirement.

First of all, there is no example given in the Bible of one-on-one confession. John 20:23 is often cited by the church, but that merely establishes that the priest may, if requested, forgive someone’s sins. Of course, if you want the priest to forgive your sins, you will need to tell him what they are, but the passage cannot logically be read as making confession to a priest the sole means of obtaining forgiveness of sin.

James 5:16 is likewise unavailing. Confess your faults to one another, it says. That means, if I offend you, I am to apologize, and vice versa. There is nothing in James 5:16 that mandates confession to a priest.

Confess your sins to God and to those whom you have wronged. If you want to talk to the priest, fine, but it is not mandatory.

The church can be wrong or at least change its mind. When I was growing up in the 1960’s, I was taught that “eating a large piece of meat on Friday” was a mortal sin, worthy of eternal damnation in Hell. Wow. Right up there with ramming a plane into the World Trade Center! Then, oops, eating meat on Friday is okay (although we are supposed to commemorate Friday in some other way, since Jesus died on a Friday).

Do you think all those pre-1964 meat eaters are still burning in Hell while we have steak?

Oh, and what about all the unbaptized babies who, through no fault of their own or their parents, died without being baptized? Can you imagine the torment to grieving parents when they were told that their child was not in heaven, but in some vague place called limbo? Oops, the Pope came out with a statement debunking limbo.

Confession is a gift. So should we throw out the eucharist and confirmation too?

I can remember feeling the same way some time ago in what seems like a former life.
My problem? I had serious sins I needed to confess.

Uttering the sins to a priest: Excruciating.

Hearing the words of absolution: Priceless!!