SPLIT: Confession to a priest not necessary

[Randy_Carson]

Phil-

First, would you mind posting in black, please? This bolded blue text is brutal.

Thanks.

And the idea of “confessing” to a priest was unknown while the Apostles were still living as evidenced by the fact that in all his teachings, instructions, and admonitions in his dozen plus letters to the churches, the Apostle Paul does not mention it even ONCE. And he doesn’t mention a priesthood either, let alone confession to it.

Really?

In the OT, the structure of the priesthood looked like this:

1. Aaron, high priest
2. Levites, ministerial priests
3. Israel, a nation of priests

We see a similar structure in the NT. Check out the passage on the Ministerial Priesthood below. Concerning Paul’s reference to the NT priesthood.

The New Testament Priesthood Proved from Scripture

Jesus, Our Eternal High Priest

“Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.” (Hebrews 4:14)

The Ministerial Priesthood

“But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 15:15-16)

The Universal Priesthood of All Belivers

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9)

Additionally, 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)

You are switching subjects from confession to prayer, but, again, you cannot know that about silent prayer, nor can you say “all prayer was oral” with any proof or documentation. Making silent prayer or confession to God some sort of recent invention dating back only to the 1500’s is utterly ridiculous.

Hmmm…the Early Church Fathers wrote about auricular confession in the following passages:

ECF’s on Confession to a Priest

Origen

“[The repentant sinner] does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord." (Homilies on Leviticus, [AD 244]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“Finally, of how much greater faith and more salutary fear are they who…confess to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience” (The Lapsed, [AD 251]).

**Firmilian **

“But what is his error and how great his blindness…who does not remain on the foundation of the one true Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ, can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone, ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall also be loosed in heaven’; and by this, again in the Gospel, when Christ breathed upon the apostles alone, saying to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive any man his sins they shall be forgiven, and if you retain any man’s sins they shall be retained.’ The power of forgiving sins was given to the apostles and the churches which these men, sent by Christ, established and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place” (Epistle to Cyprian 75:16 [Inter A.D. 255-256]).

Aphraates

“If anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public” (Treatises 7:4, [ca. 300’s]).

**Gregory I **

“The disciples receive as their lot the preeminence of celestial judgment, so that, in God’s stead, they retain sins for some and for some they forgive them [John 20:22-23]. . . . Certainly it is now the bishops who hold their place in the Church. They receive the authority of binding and loosing, who have as their lot a degree of governing. It is a magnificent honor, but that honor carries with it a heavy burden.”(Homilies on the Gospels 2:26:4 [A.D. 590-591]).

 

[Phil12123]

Phil, if our sins are paid in full by Christ’s sacrifice, then why it is necessary for you to confess any personal sin (as opposed to original sin) to God?

"if"? Would you say that some of our sins—ANY of our sins—are NOT paid in full by Christ’s sacrifice? If not how can they ever be forgiven, if not paid for and washed away by the Blood of Christ? John says,

1 John 1:6. If we say, “We have fellowship with him,” while we continue to walk in darkness, we lie and do not act in truth.
7. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin.
8. If we say, “We are without sin,” we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9. If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing.
10. If we say, “We have not sinned,” we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Isn’t “all sin” ALL sin? Now, back to your question…

All of a believer’s personal sins are paid for in full by Christ’s sacrifice, but, though paid for, it is still necessary to confess them to Him to restore broken fellowship (not restore eternal life) with God, just as your earthly son (if you have one) needs to acknowledge to you, his earthly father, instances when he has disobeyed you, for the fellowship between the two of you to be restored. Your son has not stopped being your son when he disobeys you, and you have not stopped loving him as your son, but for him to be on “speaking terms” so-to-speak, he has to fess up and acknowledge, or confess, his disobedience for the two of you to enjoy a restored fellowship of the sort enjoyed before the disobedience.

There is also the next verses, 1 John 2:1-2, which need to be considered, “My children, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one. He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.” Does Jesus’ present ministry of making intercession or advocacy on our behalf not also effectively deal with our sins? The ideal, of course, is that we not sin, but if we do, we have an Advocate with the Father. Is He not an effective Advocate? Do you imagine that He has ever lost a case He advocated?

 

[jmcrae]

The passage you cite does not say anything about people coming to the Apostles “to receive that forgiveness in person,” as you claim.

Sure it does - read it again. They are traveling. They are going from place to place. Why? To hear the people’s confessions. If all they had to do was say “Jesus loves you, believe it and live” they would not have had to travel at all; they would just send posters to put up around the city, for people to read. If “name it and claim it” is all there is, then the Apostles sure went to a whole lot of unnecessary hard work, don’t you think?

Whatever that “documentation” is, it cannot possibly prove that no one prayed silent prayers until the 1500s. In Jesus’ teaching about prayer, He said, "But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret.

Why close the door, then? So that no one can hear the spoken words that you are speaking, in your oral prayer.

But if it is mental prayer, you can do it in the busiest street, since no one, not even someone standing next to you, can hear your thoughts - so, no need for closed doors.

And your Father who sees in secret will repay you" (Matt. 6:6). God is all-knowing. He knows our thoughts, obviously, as did Jesus when He walked the earth (Matt. 12:25; Luke 6:8). He doesn’t need for us to verbalize a prayer out loud for Him to “hear” our prayers.

I know that, and you know that, because we learned it from the work of St. Teresa of Avila.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

"if"? Would you say that some of our sins—ANY of our sins—are NOT paid in full by Christ’s sacrifice? If not how can they ever be forgiven, if not paid for and washed away by the Blood of Christ? John says,

1 John 1:6. If we say, “We have fellowship with him,” while we continue to walk in darkness, we lie and do not act in truth.
7. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin.
8. If we say, “We are without sin,” we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9. If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing.
10. If we say, “We have not sinned,” we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Isn’t “all sin” ALL sin? Now, back to your question…

All of a believer’s personal sins are paid for in full by Christ’s sacrifice, but, though paid for, it is still necessary to confess them to Him to restore broken fellowship (not restore eternal life) with God, just as your earthly son (if you have one) needs to acknowledge to you, his earthly father, instances when he has disobeyed you, for the fellowship between the two of you to be restored. Your son has not stopped being your son when he disobeys you, and you have not stopped loving him as your son, but for him to be on “speaking terms” so-to-speak, he has to fess up and acknowledge, or confess, his disobedience for the two of you to enjoy a restored fellowship of the sort enjoyed before the disobedience.

There is also the next verses, 1 John 2:1-2, which need to be considered, “My children, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one. He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.” Does Jesus’ present ministry of making intercession or advocacy on our behalf not also effectively deal with our sins? The ideal, of course, is that we not sin, but if we do, we have an Advocate with the Father. Is He not an effective Advocate? Do you imagine that He has ever lost a case He advocated?

Why does one need an Advocate if you have been legally accredited righteous by God? The legal Advocate would then be unneeded if the case has already decided: the lost declared saved.

Also, in the passage cited, the fellowship is with “one another” while in the rest of the cited passage refers to Christ as “Him” hence the loss of fellowship is within the members. This is another reason why confession must be with another human being–our sins not only hurt God but the Church as well. We hurt the Church by our bad example, damaging them as well. Hence the priest is a representative for the Church and humanity.

 

[Ignatius33]

It seems to me that, at bottom, Catholics (joined by every non-Protestant Church, including Copts, Ethiopians, Eastern Orthodox, etc., who all believe in confession to priests) and Protestants disagree on the proper meaning and interpretation of the passages mentioned in this thread (especially John 20:21-23, Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18). Even granting that the Protestant interpretation is reasonable, I find it unpersuasive because it finds no support whatsoever in the early Church, which clearly followed the Catholic position. Early on, the Church believed that it had the authority to forgive sins (though, of course, it is only though God that sins are actually forgiven). If this were a novel practice, one would expect that someone – whether some proto-Protestant or “pure”/uncorrupted Christian – would have fought against such a drastic “innovation” or “corruption” of the Gospel. Yet, there is no protest in the historical record. True, Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) – ever the rigorist – didn’t like the idea of frequent reconciliation (I believe he would have said that a Christian should have one chance and one chance alone to have his mortal sins forgiven after baptism), but even he did not deny the authority of the Church to forgive sins as it saw fit. In fact, the earliest denier of this power (of which I am aware) was the anti-pope Novatian (ca. 250 AD), whose followers (the Novatians or Novatianists) believed that the Church could not forgive mortal sins; rather, those in a state of mortal sin were to be excommunicated for life and were damned unless God chose to forgive them at the end of their lives. In contrast, we see that all the Church Fathers to speak on the issue, from Irenaeus to Augustine, believed that the Church had the authority to forgive sins.

Since the Catholic interpretation is both reasonable and squares with history (how could the God allow the entire Church to fall off the rails on this issue, despite His promises to the contrary in Jn. 16:13; Matt. 16:18, etc.), I find it to be the more persuasive viewpoint. Here is a more comprehensive listing of relevant patristic passages:

1. The Didache: “Confess your offenses in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life . . . On the Lord’s Day of the Lord * gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache [before 100 AD]).
2. St. Ignatius of Antioch speaks of the mercy of God to sinners, provided they return “with one consent to the unity of Christ and the communion of the bishop” (Letter to the Philadelphians [ca. 105 AD]).
3. St. Irenaeus: “[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women in our own district of the Rhone, by saying and doing such things. Their consciences branded as with a hot iron, some of these women make a public confession; but others are ashamed to do this, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies [ca. 180 AD]).
4. Tertullian, while still Catholic, referred to this sacrament as the second plank of salvation after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace (Repentance 203/204 AD).

Tertullian also addressed those who put off confessing their sin because they were ashamed: “mindful more of their shame than of their salvation, like those who hide from the physician the malady they suffer in the secret parts of the body, and thus perish through bashfulness . . . because we withhold anything from the knowledge of men, do we thereby conceal it from God? . . . Is it better to hide and be damned than to be openly absolved?” (id.).

1. St. Hippolytus of Rome observed that bishops “by the Spirit of the high-priesthood have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” [Jn. 20:21-23] (The Apostolic Tradition [ca. 215 AD]).
2. Pope St. Callistus or Agrippinus of Carthage: “I forgive the sins both of adultery and of fornication to those who have done penance” (Peremptory Edict [ca. 218-222 AD]).
3. Origen noted that a Christian “does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine” (Homilies on Leviticus [after 244 AD]).

Origen further compares the sinner to those whose stomachs are overloaded with undigested food or with the excess of humours and phlegm if they vomit, they are relieved, “so, too, those who have sinned, if they conceal and keep the sin within, they are distressed and almost choked by its humour or phlegm. But if they accuse themselves and confess, they at the same time vomit the sin and cast off every cause of disease” (Homilies on the Psalms [240-242 AD]).

Origen goes on to say: “They who have sinned, if they hide and retain their sin within their breast, are grievously tormented; but if the sinner becomes his own accuser, while he does this, he discharges the cause of his malady. Only let him carefully consider to whom he should confess his sin; what is the character of the physician; if he be one who will be weak with the weak, who will weep with the sorrowful, and who understands the discipline of condolence and fellow-feeling. So that when his skill shall be known and his pity felt, you may follow what he shall advise. Should he think your disease to be such that it should be declared in the assembly of the faithful – whereby others may be edified, and yourself easily reformed – this must be done with much deliberation and the skillful advice of the physician” (id.).

continued*

 

[Ignatius33]

1. St. Cyprian of Carthage: “Although you sent me a letter in which you ask that consideration be given your desire that, after the [Decian] persecution is over and we begin to gather together again and to meet together with the clergy, peace be then extended to the lapsed, those [aforementioned presbyters] have dared – contrary to the law of the gospel, contrary even to your respectful petition, before penance has been done, before a confession of the most grave and extreme sin has been made, before a hand has been imposed in penance by the bishop and the clergy – to offer on their behalf and to give them the Eucharist; that is, to profane the holy Body of the Lord, in spite of what is written: ‘Whosoever shall eat the Bread or drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord’” [1 Cor. 11:27] (Letter in Reply to Certain Martyrs and Confessors [250 AD]).

Cyprian also says: “Although for lesser sins it is required that sinners do penance for a just time, after which, according to the rule of discipline, they may come to confession and, through the imposition of hands by the bishop and clergy, may receive the right of communication, now, in an unpropitious time and while the persecution continues, when peace is not yet restored to the Church itself, they are being admitted to communication, and the offering is made in their name; and, not yet having made a confession of sin, not yet having had hands imposed upon them by the bishop and clergy, the Eucharist is given to them, in spite of what is written: ‘Whoever shall eat the Bread or drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord’” [1 Cor. 11:27] (Letter to Cyprian’s Clergy [250 AD]).

Elsewhere, Cyprian remarked that those who receive Holy Communion before confessing to a priest the sin of denying Christ to avoid persecution or death at the hands of the imperial Roman authorities “do violence to His Body and Blood; and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied Him” (The Lapsed [251 AD]).

Cyprian further observes: “If, however, someone among them shall have been found to be corrupted, let her do full penance, because she that has committed this crime is an adulteress not against a husband but against Christ. Therefore, at a time considered a just interval after she has made a confession of sin, let her return to the Church. But if they continue in their obstinacy and will not separate themselves from each other, let them know that because of such shameless obstinacy we can never admit them to the Church, lest by their sins they might begin to set an example for the ruination of others. Do not let them imagine that the way of life and of salvation is still open to them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and the priests” (Letter to Pomponius, Bishop of Dionysiana [ca. 250 AD]).

Again, Cyprian states: “We have read your letter, dearest brother, in which you indicated in regard to Victor, formerly a presbyter, that our colleague Therapius [Bishop of Bulla Minor] had rashly granted peace to him after an insufficient time and in headlong haste, before he had done full penance and before he had made satisfaction to the Lord God, against whom he had sinned. This matter disturbed us considerably, because it was a departure from the authority of our decree, in that peace was granted him before the full and lawful time of satisfaction, without the request nor even the awareness of the people, and with no pressing illness nor any compelling necessity . . . Still, we did not think that peace, once granted in whatever way by a priest of God, should be taken away; and for this reason we have allowed Victor to avail himself of the communion granted him” (Letter of Cyprian and his Colleagues in Council to the Number of Sixty-Six: To Fidus [251-252 AD]).

And again, Cyprian writes: “We think that no one should be held back from the fruit of satisfaction and from the hope of peace, since we know by our faith in the Divine Scriptures, of which God Himself is the author and initiator, both that sinners are brought back to repentance, and that pardon and forgiveness are not denied the penitent . . . And if, inasmuch as the Lord is merciful and kind, we find that none of those imploring and entreating His mercy should be prohibited from doing penance, then peace is able to be extended through His priests. The groans of those who mourn must be taken into account, and the fruit of repentance must not be denied to the sorrowful. And since among the dead there is no confession, nor in that place can a confession of sin be made, those who have repented from the bottom of their heart and have besought it, must after a time be received into the Church, to be preserved therein for the Lord” (Letter to Antonianus, Bishop of Numidia [251-252 AD]).

1. Lactantius: “That is the true Church in which there is confession and penance, which applies a wholesome remedy to the sins and wounds whereunto the weakness of the flesh is subject” (Divine Institutes [304-310 AD]).
2. Aphraates the Persian Sage: “You physicians *, then, who are the disciples of our illustrious Physician, you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us” (Treatises [inter 336-345 AD]).

continued…*

 

[Ignatius33]

1. St. Hilary of Poitiers: “[On Matthew 18:18] The power of binding and loosing given to the Apostles: In our present condition we are all subdued by the terror of that greatest dread *. And now, out in front of that terror, He sets the irrevocable apostolic judgment, however severe, so that those whom they shall bind on earth, that is, whomsoever they leave bound in the knots of their sins; and those whom they loose, which is to say, those who by their confession receive grace unto salvation – these, in accord with the apostolic sentence, are bound or loosed also in heaven” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [ca. 353-355 AD]).
2. St. Athanasius: “As the man whom the priest baptizes is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Ghost, so does he who in penance confesses his sins, receive through the priest forgiveness in virtue of the grace of Christ” (Fragment Against Novatian [before 373 AD]).
3. St. Epiphanius: “Just as one who has lost virginity has not the ability of regaining it physically, that being a physical impossibility, so too it is with those who fall into some great transgressions after Baptism; and just as one who falls from virginity can have the secondary honor of continence, so also one who commits transgressions of the graver kind after his Baptism has a secondary remedy *” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies [374/377 AD]).
4. St. John Chrysostom: “They who inhabit the earth, they who make their abode among men, are entrusted with the dispensation of the things of heaven! Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed’ [Matt. 18:18]. Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can bind only the body. Priests, however, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself, and transcends the very heavens. Whatever priests do here on earth, God will confirm in heaven, just as the master ratifies the decisions of his servants. Did He not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ He says, ‘they are forgiven them: whose sins you shall retain, they are retained’ [Jn. 20:23]. What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all the judgment to the Son [Jn. 5:22]. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven, elevated above human nature, and freed of its limitations . . . The priests of Judaism had power to cleanse the body from leprosy – or rather, not to cleanse it at all, but to declare a person as having been cleansed [Lev. 14:2-3]. And you know how much contention there was even in those times to obtain the priestly office. Our priests have received the power not of treating with the leprosy of the body, but with spiritual uncleanness; not of declaring cleansed, but of actually cleansing” (The Priesthood [after 386 AD]).

Chrysostom pleads with the sinner: “Be not ashamed to approach [the priest] because you have sinned, nay rather, for this very reason approach. No one says: ‘Because I have an ulcer, I will not go near a physician or take medicine’; on the contrary, it is just this that makes it needful to call in physicians and apply remedies. We [priests] know well how to pardon, because we ourselves are liable to sin. This is why God did not give us angels to be our doctors, nor send down Gabriel to rule the flock, but from the fold itself he chooses the shepherds, from among the sheep He appoints the leader, in order that he may be inclined to pardon his followers and, keeping in mind his own fault, may not set himself in hardness against the members of the flock” (Homily on Frequent Assembly [before 407 AD]).

1. Theodore of Mopsuestia: “If we commit a great sin against the commandments . . . we must first induce our conscience with all our power to make haste and repent our sins as is proper, and not permit ourselves any other medicine . . . This is the medicine for sins, established by God and delivered to the priests of the Church, who make diligent use of it in healing the afflictions of men. You are aware of these things, as also of the fact that God, because He greatly cares for us, gave us penitence and showed us the medicine of repentance; and He established some men, those who are priests, as physicians of sins. If in this world we receive through them healing and forgiveness of sins, we shall be delivered from the judgment that is to come. It behooves us, therefore, to draw near to the priests in great confidence and to reveal to them our sins; and those priests, with all diligence, solicitude and love, and in accord with the regulations mentioned above, will grant healing to sinners. [The priests] will not disclose the things that ought not be disclosed; rather, they will be silent about the things that have happened, as befits true and loving fathers who are bound to guard the shame of their children while striving to heal their bodies” (Catechetical Homilies [before 428 AD]).

continued…**

 

[Ignatius33]

1. St. Pacian of Barcelona: “Certainly God never threatens the repentant; rather, He pardons the penitent. You will say that it is God alone who can do this. True enough; but it is likewise true that He does it through His priests, who exercise His power. What else can it mean when He says to His Apostles: ‘Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven?’ [Matt. 16:19; Jn. 20:23]. Why should he say this if He were not permitting men to bind and to loose? Why, if He were permitting this to the Apostles alone? Were that the case, He would likewise be permitting them alone to baptize, them alone to Confer the Holy Spirit, them alone to cleanse the pagans of their sins; for all of these things are commissioned not to others but to the Apostles. But if the loosing of bonds and the power of the Sacrament is given to anyone in that place, either the whole is passed on to us from the form and power of the Apostles, or nothing of it can be imparted to us by whatever decrees . . . If, then, the power both of Baptism and Confirmation, greater by far than charisms, is passed on to the bishops, so too is the right of binding and of loosing . . . ‘Whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19; Jn. 20:23]. ‘Whatever you shall loose,’ He says; and He excepts absolutely nothing. ‘Whatever,’ He says: whether it be great or whether it be small” (Three Letters to the Novatianist Sympronian [inter 375-392 AD]).

Pacian also writes: “But what can he do who was contemptuous of God? What shall the murderer do? What remedy shall the fornicator find? . . . These are capital sins, brethren, these are mortal. Someone may say: ‘Are we then about to perish? . . . Are we to die in our sins?’ . . . I appeal first to you brethren who refuse penance for your acknowledged crimes: you, I say, who are timid after your impudence, who are bashful after your sins, who were not ashamed to sin but now are ashamed to confess . . . Remember that confession extinguishes hell for you” (Sermon Exhorting to Penance [before 392 AD]).

1. St. Basil the Great: “It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted” (Rule Briefly Treated [374 AD]).
2. Apostolic Constitutions: “Grant him, O Lord almighty, through Thy Christ, the participation of Thy Holy Spirit, in order that he may have the power to remit sins according to Thy precept and Thy command, and to loosen every bond, whatsoever it be, according to the power which Thou hast granted to the Apostles” (ca. 400 AD).
3. St. Jerome, comparing the priests of the New Law with those of the Old who dealt with leprosy, says “likewise in the New Testament the bishops and the priests bind or loose . . . in virtue of their office, having heard various sorts of sinners, they know who is to be bound and who is to be loosed” (Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew [ca. 398 AD]).

Jerome says: “If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound to his brother and to his master, then his brother and his master, who have the word that will cure him, cannot very well assist him. For if the sick man is ashamed to confess his wound to the physician, medicine will not cure that to which it is not applied” (Commentary on Ecclesiastes [ca. 388-389 AD]).

Jerome also remarks: “let no one find it irksome to show his wound because without confession he cannot be healed” (Sermon on Penance [before 419 AD]).

1. St. Ambrose of Milan: “Things that are impossible with men are possible with God. God is able, whenever He wills, to forgive us our sins, even those we think cannot be forgiven. Thus it is possible for God to give us what to us seems impossible to obtain. Now, it seemed impossible that sin should be washed away in water . . . But what was impossible was made possible by God, who gave us so great a grace. It seemed likewise impossible for sins to be forgiven through penance; yet Christ granted even this to His Apostles, and by His Apostles it has been transmitted to the offices of priests. That has been made possible, therefore, which seemed to be impossible” (Penance [387/390 AD]).

Ambrose rebukes the Novatianists who “professed to show reverence for the Lord by reserving to Him alone the power of forgiving sins. Greater wrong could not be done than what they do in seeking to rescind His commands and fling back the office He bestowed . . . The Church obeys Him in both respects, by binding sin and by loosing it; for the Lord willed that for both the power should be equal” (id.).

Ambrose makes clear that the power to forgive extends to all sins: “God makes no distinction; He promised mercy to all and to His priests He granted the authority to pardon without any exception” (id.).

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

1. Paulinus of Milan: “[Ambrose] rejoiced also with those who rejoiced, and wept with those who wept. For whenever anyone confessed his sins to him to receive a penance, he so wept that he forced the penitent too to weep. For he considered that he was himself in a state similar to that of the penitent. But when cases of crimes were confessed to him, he spoke of it to none but the Lord alone, with whom he interceded; and thus he left a good example to later priests, to be intercessors with God rather than accusers among men. For even according to the Apostle, love is to be confirmed in dealing with a person of this kind [2 Cor. 2:8]; for he has become his own accuser who does not wait for but anticipates the accuser; and thus, by confessing, he lightens his own sin, lest he have something of which the adversary might accuse him” (Life of St. Ambrose [ca. 420 AD]).
2. St. Augustine: “The remission of sins is their unbinding . . . Let this be in the heart of the penitent: when you hear a man confessing his sins, he has already come to life again; when you hear a man lay bare his conscience in confessing, he has already come forth from the sepulcher; but he is not yet unbound. When is he unbound? By whom is he unbound? ‘Whatever you loose on earth,’ He says, ‘shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. Rightly is the loosing of sins able to be given by the Church” (Explanation of the Psalms [inter 392-418 AD]).

Augustine also warns the faithful: “Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church” (Christian Combat [396/397 AD]).

Augustine writes: “Let no one say: ‘I did that; perhaps I will not be forgiven.’ Because you did it? How great is the sin you committed? Tell me what you have done, something serious, something horrible, something terrifying even to think about. Whatever you might have done, did you kill Christ? There is nothing worse than having done that, because there is nothing better than Christ. How great a wrong is it to kill Christ? But the Jews killed Him; and afterwards many of them believed in Him and drank His Blood: and the sin which they had committed was forgiven them. When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God, so that you may preserve your Baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins; for light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. What does the prayer say? ‘Forgive us our debts as we too forgive our debtors’ [Matt. 6:12]. We are cleansed only once by Baptism; by prayer we are cleansed daily. But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the Body of Christ *; perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities: that is why they are doing penance. If their sin were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in Baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet, God does not forgive sins except to the baptized” (Sermon to Catechumens, On the Creed [ca. 395 AD]).

Augustine sweeps aside the notion that confession could be done between the sinner and God alone, without the aid of an intermediary: “Let no one say I do penance secretly; I perform it in the sight of God, and He who is to pardon me knows that in my heart I repent.” Whereupon, Augustine asks: “Was it then said to no purpose, ‘What you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven?’ Was it for nothing that the keys were given to the Church?” (Sermon 392 [391-430 AD]).

Augustine also wrote: “I realize what the incontinent can say . . . that if a man, accusing his wife of adultery, kills her, this sin, since it is finished and does not perdure in him, if it is committed by a catechumen, is absolved in Baptism; and, if it is done by one who is baptized, it is healed by Penance and reconciliation” (Adulterous Marriages [419-420 AD]).

Again, Augustine states: “Yet those who do penance in accord with the kind of sin they have committed are not to despair of receiving God’s mercy in the Holy Church, for the remission of their crimes, however serious. In the penitential action, however, where the crime committed was such that he who committed it is separated from the body of Christ, it is not so much the length of time as the depth of sorrow that is to be considered” (The Enchiridion of Faith, Hope and Love [421 AD]).

1. Pope St. Innocent: “Regarding these *, the earlier practice was more severe, the later more tempered with mercy. The former custom was that penance should be granted, but Communion denied; for in those times persecutions were frequent, hence, lest the easy admission to Communion should fail to bring back from their evil ways men who were sure of reconciliation, very rightly Communion was refused, while penance was granted in order that the refusal might not be total . . . But after Our Lord had restored peace to his Churches, and terror had ceased, it was judged well that Communion be given the dying lest we should seem to follow the harshness and sternness of the heretic Novatian in denying pardon. Communion, therefore, shall be given at the last along with penance, that these men, if only in the supreme moment of death, may, with the permission of Our Savior, be rescued from eternal destruction” (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse [405 AD]).

continued…**

 

[Ignatius33]

1. Pope St. Celestine expressed horror at learning that “penance was refused the dying and that the desire of those was not granted who in the hour of death sought this remedy for their soul” – this, he says, is “adding death to death and killing with cruelty the soul that is not absolved” (Letter to the bishops of Vienne and Narbonne [428 AD]).
2. St. Cyril of Alexandria: “[On John 20:23]: In what way, then, and by what reason does the Savior bestow upon His own disciples the dignity which belongs to the divine nature alone? Certainly, the Word, who is in the Father, would not err in what is seemly, and what He does is right and proper. He considered that those who already had in themselves the Divine and Lordly Spirit ought to be lords also of forgiving the sins of some, and of retaining those of others if they wished, the Holy Spirit indwelling in them forgiving or retaining according to their own will, even though the matter is executed directly through men. Men filled with the Spirit of God * forgive sins or retain them, it seems to me, in two ways, for either they call to Baptism those who are worthy, men already tested for the faith by the sobriety and constancy of their lives, or they prohibit and exclude the divine grace those who are not yet worthy; or in still another way they forgive and retain sins when sons of the Church conquer their sins and, confessing them, reform their lives” (Commentary on John [before 429 AD]).
3. Salaman the Church historian: “Because to be entirely without sin belongs more to divine than to human nature, God has decreed that pardon is to be extended to those who repent even after many transgressions. Since in asking pardon it is necessary to confess the sin, it seems likely that from the very beginning priests saw that it was burdensome for the people to confess their sins in public and with the whole church as witness. So they appointed a presbyter who could conduct himself with the utmost self-control and prudence to be in charge of this. It was to him that the penitents went to confess their transgressions. His was the task of assessing the penalty that had to be exacted for each sin and, when satisfaction had been made, of absolving them” (History of the Church [ca. 439 AD]).
4. Pope St. Leo the Great forbids as an abuse “contrary to the Apostolic rule” the reading out in public of a written statement of their sins drawn up by the faithful because, he declares, “it suffices that the guilt of conscience be manifested to priests alone in secret confession” (Letter to the bishops of Campania [ca. 459 AD]).

In another epistle, after declaring that by Divine ordinance the mercy of God can be obtained only through the supplication of the priests, Leo adds: “the mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus, gave the rulers of the Church this power that they should impose penance on those who confess and admit them when purified by salutary satisfaction to the communion of the sacraments through the gateway of reconciliation” (Epistle to Theodore, Bishop of Rejus, No. 108 [442 AD]).

Again, Leo says: “Neither satisfaction is to be forbidden nor reconciliation denied to those who in time of need and imminent danger implore the aid of penance and then of reconciliation.” After pointing out that penance should not be deferred from day to day until the moment “when there is hardly space either for the confession of the penitent or his reconciliation by the priest,” he adds that even in these circumstances “the action of penance and the grace of communion should not be denied if asked for by the penitent” (id.).

1. St. Fulgence of Ruspe: “From this Church even those who are involved in various errors outside the Church can receive the forgiveness of their sins, if, while they are still in this world, they will be converted to this same Church in a correct belief and in contrite and heartfelt humility. Let them hasten, then, while there is yet time, to their legitimate Mother *, who diligently sustains and nourishes the sons born of her womb . . . Let them abandon heresy and return quickly to the Catholic Church. Let them neither doubt the possession of their inheritance nor despair of the forgiveness of their sins. For anyone who does not believe that within the Catholic Church all sins can be loosed deprives himself of the forgiveness of sins if, persevering in the same hardness of an impenitent heart, he departs from this world alienated from the Church’s society” (The Forgiveness of Sins [512-523 AD]).

continued…**

 

[Ignatius33]

1. Pope St. Gregory the Great: “The disciples receive as their lot the preeminence of celestial judgment, so that, in God’s stead, they retain sins for some and for some they forgive them. It was fitting that they be so raised up by God, when they had consented to be so grossly humiliated for God’s sake. See, they who feared the strict judgment of God have become judges of souls, and they who feared that they would themselves be condemned now either condemn others or release them. Certainly it is now the bishops who hold their place in the Church. They receive the authority of binding and of loosing, who have as their lot a degree of governing. It is a magnificent honor, but that honor carries with it a heavy burden . . . Reasons, therefore, must be reflected upon; and then the power of binding and of loosing is to be exercised. It must be seen what fault preceded, or what repentance followed after that fault, so that the sentence of the pastor may absolve those on whom Almighty God bestows the grace of compunction” (Homilies on the Gospels [590-591 AD]).

Pope Gregory further teaches “the affliction of penance is efficacious in blotting out sins when it is enjoined by the sentence of the priest when the burden of it is decided by him in proportion to the offense after weighing the deeds of those who confess” (In I Reg., III, v, n.13 [before 604 AD]).

1. St. Thomas Aquinas, although he lived long after the patristic era, is still worth quoting: “As our Lord said to His disciples [Matt. 28:18]: ‘Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them,’ etc., so did He say to Peter [Matt. 16:19]: ‘Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,’ etc. Now the priest, relying on the authority of those words of Christ says: ‘I baptize thee.’ Therefore on the same authority he should say in this sacrament [of Penance]: ‘I absolve thee’” (Summa Theologica III, Q. 84, Art. 3 [1265-1274 AD]).

“Therefore it is evident that after [mortal] sin the sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation, even as bodily medicine after man has contracted a dangerous disease” (id. III, Q. 84, Art. 5).

“The grace which is given in the sacraments descends from the Head to the members. Wherefore he alone who exercises ministry over Christ’s true body is a minister of the sacraments, wherein grace is given; and this belongs to the priest alone, who can consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore, since grace is given in the sacrament of Penance, none but the priest is the minister of the sacrament: and consequently sacramental confession which should be made to a minister of the Church should be made to none but a priest” (id. Suppl., Q.8, Art. 1).

 

[LutheranDK]

They may be “very clear” to someone who ignores context and verb tenses and follows a Catholic tradition, even though you claim to be Lutheran. No, I’m not a “KJV only” advocate. That should be obvious from the fact that the KJV translates John 20:23 wrongly, as I have already pointed out. DUH!! The New American Standard Version has it right.

Your infantile “DUH” makes your arguments even weaker than they already are.
It is not the Lutheran, Roman-Catholic, Eastern-Orthodox Churches that takes the Bible and picks and chooses which verses they want to use, and which they don’t. That is the trademark of the “non-denominational”, “fundamentalist”, " “Bible-believing” " (note the double quotation marks there!) churches.
If you have the kind of knowledge of the biblical languages that can enable you to have an informed opinion on the matter of translation, and therefore say that the NASV is “correct”, then please go ahead and present your arguments. Otherwise, I refuse to take your statements seriously, as anything else than the ramblings of someone who thinks he knows better than 2000 years of Christianity because “the holy spirit guides me”.

Wrong again. There are many people in this forum who would dispute Luther’s following Christ. Wouldn’t they all become Lutherans if that were the case? But for some reason we still have a Catholic Church. So my alternative is NOT a strawman. DUH again.

That above reasoning is a non-sequitur, and I don’t know which is more ridiculous: The fact that you don’t see that, or the fact that you presented that argument in the first case.
It’s a strawman, and I’m not going to take the bait by going further into this debate before you provide some kind of proof of your claims. Luther followed Christ. Calvin MAY have (although I’ve yet to take a stance on that subject, since I’ve been told that his Christology was heretical, but not yet found out), and Zwingli probably followed his own ambitions.