SPLIT: Confession to a priest not necessary

[jmcrae]

The practice of the Early Church, for the first 600 years, was that penitents confessed their sins during the Penitential Rite at the beginning of Mass, and received Absolution from the presiding Bishop or priest in the hearing of the whole congregation. For the first 150 years of the Church, this was actually the whole Sacrament, but in the mid to late 100s AD, we find penitents going privately to trusted priests, to ask their advice on which sins they should confess publicly, and receiving Absolution for those sins that they were not required to confess publicly.

In Ireland during the 500s AD, the missionaries found that their congregation members were too shy to do the public portion of the Sacrament, and were in danger of neglecting the Sacrament of Confession altogether, so they dispensed them from the public act altogether, and made the Sacrament of Confession to be a private matter between priest and penitent. This form of the Sacrament gradually spread throughout Europe, and by 700 AD, it was the only way to do it. The Rite of Penance became what we know it as, today.

The notion of “confessing” privately to God alone (although how the private thoughts of one’s mind constitute a “confession” is obscure to me) is rather recent, and finds no precedent in Christian history, nor in the previous Jewish practice, which entailed not onlu confessing one’s sins to the son of Levi, but also bringing the appropriate animal for sacrifice, and eating of its flesh in a ritual action.

It’s clear that when Jesus said “Confess your sins” the Apostles took Him to mean, confess out loud in the presence of other Christians. This is still the understanding that we apply to it today, even though today, the penitent only confesses out loud in the presence of the priest, and not in front of the whole congregation, as in Apostolic times.

 

[Phil12123]

Here is an example of Jesus telling a man to go to the priests after having been cleansed of leprosy:

Why did He tell the man to go see the priest? Because the man was an outcast from society because of his uncleanness, much like a sinner is an outcast. It was the priests who, according to the Law of Moses, were given the authority to determine if a person was clean or unclean.

As in confession, Jesus is the one who forgives our sins, but it is the priest who readmits us to good standing within the Church, just as the Levitical priests did in the Old Testament. Also, the reason you don’t see converts confessing their sins to the apostles is because baptism remits all sin. Sacramental confession is necessary for the forgiveness of sins after baptism, as the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches.

Yes, the Law of Moses called for the priests to declare a leper clean and readmit him into the Israelite society. But what do we have today that you can cite from Scripture to justify confession to a priest in today’s church? We are not under the Law of Moses, and, frankly, there is no scriptural support for “priests” in Christ’s church today.

In the N.T. after mention of the church by Matthew in his chapters 16 and 18, and the appointment of deacons in Acts 6, there is little discussion of offices, functions, or gifts in the church until Paul talks about the church as the Body of Christ with its members having gifts or manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:8-10) or serving in various capacities (12:28). Other passages include other gifts or offices (Rom. 12:6-8; Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1, etc.), but in all of these there is not “priest” mentioned even once. Paul tells us that there is ONE mediator between God and man, the man, Christ Jesus. The function that the O.T. priests once served has been abrogated by Christ’s fulfillment as the Lamb of God (the final, perfect Sacrifice) and our Great High Priest (the perfect offeror of that perfect Sacrifice). The Book of Hebrews makes abundantly clear that Christ fulfilled all the O.T. types and prophecies, doing away with the previous priesthood and giving HIM an unchangeable, unending Priesthood that will never pass away (Heb. 7:24). HE alone is our mediator. The temple veil was torn in two from top to bottom, indicating our direct access to God through Christ and Christ alone.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yes, the Law of Moses called for the priests to declare a leper clean and readmit him into the Israelite society. But what do we have today that you can cite from Scripture to justify confession to a priest in today’s church? We are not under the Law of Moses, and, frankly, there is no scriptural support for “priests” in Christ’s church today.

Really? Better tell St. Paul since in Romans 15 he writes, “14] I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another. 15] But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 16] to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”

but in all of these there is not “priest” mentioned even once.

See verse above in your New Testament. Even a literal translation brings it out.
Young’s Literal Translation
15:16 for my being a servant of Jesus Christ to the nations, acting as priest in the good news of God, that the offering up of the nations may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

And if you are fluent in German, (or even if you’re not) you can see for yourself that even Martin Luther’s translation brings it out.
15.16] damit ich ein Diener Christi Jesu unter den Heiden sei, um das Evangelium Gottes priesterlich auszurichten, damit die Heiden ein Opfer werden, das Gott wohlgefällig ist, geheiligt durch den heiligen Geist.

Paul tells us that there is ONE mediator between God and man, the man, Christ Jesus.

Catholics have no issue with that. It’s what the Church teaches.

The function that the O.T. priests once served has been abrogated by Christ’s fulfillment as the Lamb of God (the final, perfect Sacrifice) and our Great High Priest (the perfect offeror of that perfect Sacrifice). The Book of Hebrews makes abundantly clear that Christ fulfilled all the O.T. types and prophecies, doing away with the previous priesthood and giving HIM an unchangeable, unending Priesthood that will never pass away (Heb. 7:24).

Not in the context of the New Testament s shown by the verse cited above. If, as so many S. S. n-Cs tell us, scripture interprets scripture, then that should balance out here.

HE alone is our mediator. The temple veil was torn in two from top to bottom, indicating our direct access to God through Christ and Christ alone.

The Catholic Church has taught this all along though we keep it in the actual New Testament context that Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself ordained.

I get into all this in several articles on my blog if anyone is interested.

Catholic Confession

"I Find No Sacraments In the Bible" he said.

Scriptures About Penance

 

[Curious]

Well, I can’t do as well with tossing out good scripture and history and all that. I suppose I can just talk about personal experience, which obviously, nobody else can go on my personal experience.

Of course I confess straight to God and if I’m feeling particularly frustrated or distraught, poor God may have to hear about my sins about 50 billion times. (I wonder if he finds me exhausting sometimes).

I’ve only made about 3 confessions since I became Catholic this past Easter. My parish priest says a wonderful thing after the introductory niceties have been observed. He goes, “What would you like to bring before the Lord, today?” He keeps it so God centered, so you don’t feel like you’re in some psychotherapy session, or that you’re having tell your sins to just some guy and not the “in persona Christi” that he is.

There are no more “little secret sins” that are “just between me and God.” There is so much greater accountability, more humility - confessing one’s sin’s out loud is/can be humiliating - one of the most healing and helpful humiliations I’ve encountered.

Again, I’m not as good with the evidence and arguments and things. I kind of wish you could have a taste of this sacrament. I think you would like it.

Curious

 

[SF3CHURCH]

Luke 18:9-14

He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else.
10
“Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
11
The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity–greedy, dishonest, adulterous–or even like this tax collector.
12
I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’
13
But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’
14
I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

This is an example of how protestants “confess” their sins. Notice, however, that Jesus doesn’t justify the pharisee because of his pride. Rather, it is the humble tax collector who is justified. Confessing to a priest or any other person for that matters requires humility, and unless you “turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3. You also seems to be confused about the meaning of such words as prayer or confession.

con·fes·sion (kən-fěsh’ən)
n.
The act or process of confessing.

Something confessed, especially disclosure of one’s sins to a priest for absolution.

A written or oral statement acknowledging guilt, made by one who has been accused or charged with an offense.

An avowal of belief in the doctrines of a particular faith; a creed.

A church or group of worshipers adhering to a specific creed.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

prayer 1 (prâr)
n.

A reverent petition made to God, a god, or another object of worship.

The act of making a reverent petition to God, a god, or another object of worship.

A fervent request: Her prayer for rain was granted at last.

The thing requested: His safe arrival was their only prayer.

The request of a complainant, as stated in a complaint or in equity, that the court grant the aid or relief solicited.

The section of the complaint or bill that contains this request.

An act of communion with God, a god, or another object of worship, such as in devotion, confession, praise, or thanksgiving: One evening a week, the family would join together in prayer.

A specially worded form used to address God, a god, or another object of worship.

prayers A religious observance in which praying predominates: morning prayers.

A fervent request: Her prayer for rain was granted at last.

The thing requested: His safe arrival was their only prayer.

The request of a complainant, as stated in a complaint or in equity, that the court grant the aid or relief solicited.

The section of the complaint or bill that contains this request.

The slightest chance or hope: In a storm the mountain climbers won’t have a prayer.

 

[Phil12123]

The practice of the Early Church, for the first 600 years, was that penitents confessed their sins during the Penitential Rite at the beginning of Mass, and received Absolution from the presiding Bishop or priest in the hearing of the whole congregation. For the first 150 years of the Church, this was actually the whole Sacrament, but in the mid to late 100s AD, we find penitents going privately to trusted priests, to ask their advice on which sins they should confess publicly, and receiving Absolution for those sins that they were not required to confess publicly.

In Ireland during the 500s AD, the missionaries found that their congregation members were too shy to do the public portion of the Sacrament, and were in danger of neglecting the Sacrament of Confession altogether, so they dispensed them from the public act altogether, and made the Sacrament of Confession to be a private matter between priest and penitent. This form of the Sacrament gradually spread throughout Europe, and by 700 AD, it was the only way to do it. The Rite of Penance became what we know it as, today.

The notion of “confessing” privately to God alone (although how the private thoughts of one’s mind constitute a “confession” is obscure to me) is rather recent, and finds no precedent in Christian history, nor in the previous Jewish practice, which entailed not onlu confessing one’s sins to the son of Levi, but also bringing the appropriate animal for sacrifice, and eating of its flesh in a ritual action.

It’s clear that when Jesus said “Confess your sins” the Apostles took Him to mean, confess out loud in the presence of other Christians. This is still the understanding that we apply to it today, even though today, the penitent only confesses out loud in the presence of the priest, and not in front of the whole congregation, as in Apostolic times.

No, it is not clear, as you say, because Jesus did NOT say, “Confess your sins.” Are you referring to what the apostle John said in his first epistle (1 John 1:9)? If not, please give me the chapter and verse where Jesus said that.

 

[Phil12123]

Really? Better tell St. Paul since in Romans 15 he writes, “14] I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another. 15] But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 16] to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”
See verse above in your New Testament. Even a literal translation brings it out.
Young’s Literal Translation
15:16 for my being a servant of Jesus Christ to the nations, acting as priest in the good news of God, that the offering up of the nations may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

And if you are fluent in German, (or even if you’re not) you can see for yourself that even Martin Luther’s translation brings it out.
15.16] damit ich ein Diener Christi Jesu unter den Heiden sei, um das Evangelium Gottes priesterlich auszurichten, damit die Heiden ein Opfer werden, das Gott wohlgefällig ist, geheiligt durch den heiligen Geist.Catholics have no issue with that. It’s what the Church teaches.Not in the context of the New Testament s shown by the verse cited above. If, as so many S. S. n-Cs tell us, scripture interprets scripture, then that should balance out here.The Catholic Church has taught this all along though we keep it in the actual New Testament context that Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself ordained.

I get into all this in several articles on my blog if anyone is interested.

Catholic Confession

"I Find No Sacraments In the Bible" he said.

Scriptures About Penance

So, you think this reference to the Paul’s special ministry to the Gentiles proves what? That there is still a special class of clergy in the church today called “priests”? Or that there still exists a priesthood, though Paul forgot to mention it in all the places he lists gifts, offices, and functions in the Body of Christ in the N.T. era?

All believers are called to be “a holy priesthood” and “a royal priesthood” offering up to God the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving (1 Pet. 2:5,9; Heb. 13:15), but that is a far cry from the sacerdotal functions Catholic priests perform today acting as mediators between sinners and God, all of which has been abrogated by Christ.

The CCC, in fact, makes confession to a priest mandatory and “essential” for the forgiveness of mortal sins (sections 1456, 1493). This is an invention of man, nowhere taught in Scripture.

 

[jmcrae]

No, it is not clear, as you say, because Jesus did NOT say, “Confess your sins.” Are you referring to what the apostle John said in his first epistle (1 John 1:9)? If not, please give me the chapter and verse where Jesus said that.

You are straining at gnats. St. John relays to the Church what Christ relayed to him - or do you say that the First Letter of John is not Inspired Scripture?

We see what the Church thought He meant, by what they did in response. No one until relatively recent times has ever thought that it was appropriate to “confess” your sins all by yourself.

 

[crowcounty]

fellowship with a spiritual elder is helpful for us sinners

 

[Phil12123]

You are straining at gnats. St. John relays to the Church what Christ relayed to him - or do you say that the First Letter of John is not Inspired Scripture?

No, I’m not straining at all, just seeing the need to be accurate, since the contexts can be different for what different people said— Jesus, John, James, etc. You will admit, then, that Jesus Himself never told anyone to confess their sins to any apostle, priest, or anyone else, correct? Be accurate!

Yes, I believe 1st John is inspired Scripture, whether it was Jesus Himself or the Holy Spirit providing the inspiration. But as I have already noted, only HE, God, is mentioned, not any apostle (not even John himself) or any “priest” or anyone else. So let’s be accurate and not read into the verse something that isn’t inspired.

We see what the Church thought He meant, by what they did in response. No one until relatively recent times has ever thought that it was appropriate to “confess” your sins all by yourself.

You cannot KNOW that “no one until relatively recent times has ever thought that it was appropriate” to confess their sins directly to God and receive His forgiveness as promised in 1 John 1:9. You would have to be God to know that. How many of the millions of Christians who have lived and died over the past 2000 years have you known personally, and known so intimately that you know their hearts and what they did or did not confess to God without any “priest”? Get real.

 

[nuntym]

Yes, I believe 1st John is inspired Scripture, whether it was Jesus Himself or the Holy Spirit providing the inspiration. But as I have already noted, only HE, God, is mentioned, not any apostle (not even John himself) or any “priest” or anyone else. So let’s be accurate and not read into the verse something that isn’t inspired.

You cannot KNOW that “no one until relatively recent times has ever thought that it was appropriate” to confess their sins directly to God and receive His forgiveness as promised in 1 John 1:9. You would have to be God to know that. How many of the millions of Christians who have lived and died over the past 2000 years have you known personally, and known so intimately that you know their hearts and what they did or did not confess to God without any “priest”? Get real.

I think what jmcrae is trying to say is that no one before the Reformation (except heretics, if there were any) had ever taught that confession, as defined in 1 John 1:9, was “private,” because the original Greek did not lend to this interpretation.

Unless there is historical evidence shows that I am wrong.

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

Now, I am no Greek language scholar, but I looked up this passage in searchgodsword.org/, where one can check the original Greek of the New Testament. In the original Greek, the word “confess” was originally ὁμολογέω (homologeo) (source).

Original Word: ὁμολογέω
Transliterated word: homologeō
Definition

1. to say the same thing as another, i.e. to agree with, assent
2. to concede
   1. not to refuse, to promise
   2. not to deny
      
      1. to confess
      2. declare
      3. to confess, i.e. to admit or declare one’s self guilty of what one is accused of​
3. to profess
   1. to declare openly, speak out freely
   2. to profess one’s self the worshipper of one
4. to praise, celebrate

Source

So far so good. Now note that it seems that homologeo has a public aspect about it: you have to speak, you have to concede, you have to declare, you have to profess.

Do all instances of homologeo in the New Testament have a public aspect to it, or can it be used to denote a private action, let us say, a revealing only to God?

Well, see for yourself, go to the link in the quote above. For your and other’s convenience, I place them in the next post.

 

[nuntym]

continued from previous post

Mt 7:23 - And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS .’

Mt 10:32 - Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also **confess **him before My Father who is in heaven.

Mt 14:7 - so much that [Herod] promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked.

Lu 12:8 - And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will **confess **him also before the angels of God;

Joh 1:20 - And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ .”

Joh 9:22 - His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone **confessed **Him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.

Joh 12:42 - Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not **confessing **Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue;

Ac 7:17 - But as the time of the promise was approaching which God had assured to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt,

Ac 23:8 - For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

Ac 24:14 - "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets;

Ro 10:9 - that if you **confess **with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Ro 10:10 - for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

1Ti 6:12 - Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

Tit 1:16 - They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.

Heb 11:13 - All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having **confessed **that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

Heb 13:15 - Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.

1Jo 1:9 - If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (The passage in question)

1Jo 2:23 - Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

1Jo 4:2 - By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;

1Jo 4:3 - and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

1Jo 4:15 - Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

2Jo 1:7 - For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not **acknowledge **Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Re 3:5 - 'He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; andI will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

Is there any indication from all the other uses of homologeo that the term can denote a private confession? No there is none, every incidence of homologeo has a public aspect to it.

 

[Tomster]

No, I’m not straining at all, just seeing the need to be accurate, since the contexts can be different for what different people said— Jesus, John, James, etc. You will admit, then, that Jesus Himself never told anyone to confess their sins to any apostle, priest, or anyone else, correct? Be accurate!

Yes, I believe 1st John is inspired Scripture, whether it was Jesus Himself or the Holy Spirit providing the inspiration. But as I have already noted, only HE, God, is mentioned, not any apostle (not even John himself) or any “priest” or anyone else. So let’s be accurate and not read into the verse something that isn’t inspired.

You cannot KNOW that “no one until relatively recent times has ever thought that it was appropriate” to confess their sins directly to God and receive His forgiveness as promised in 1 John 1:9. You would have to be God to know that. How many of the millions of Christians who have lived and died over the past 2000 years have you known personally, and known so intimately that you know their hearts and what they did or did not confess to God without any “priest”? Get real.

Would you then please explain to us how on the one hand Jesus said we must forgive our brother 7x70 times but then on the other hand he told his Apostles that they could retain sins?

Please be accurate.

 

[jmcrae]

Would you then please explain to us how on the one hand Jesus said we must forgive our brother 7x70 times but then on the other hand he told his Apostles that they could retain sins?

Please be accurate.

Right. It’s obvious that the Apostles were given greater authority than the common people.

 

[Tomster]

Right. It’s obvious that the Apostles were given greater authority than the common people.

It really is obvious. It is certain that the apostles and their successors received from Christ the power to remit effectively all sins committed after baptism, accurately speaking of course!

This conclusion is of the utmost importance because it is denied by non-Catholics generally.

 

[Phil12123]

Is there any indication from all the other uses of homologeo that the term can denote a private confession? No there is none, every incidence of homologeo has a public aspect to it.

Very thoughtful response and much more scholarly than is often seen on this forum. However, I must take issue with your conclusion that “every incidence of homologeo has a public aspect to it.” Most that you listed do, because that is the nature of confessing with the mouth so that an audience hears it, as in Matt. 10:32 and John 9:22, 12:42 , confessing Him before men or not confessing Him. But that is based on the CONTEXT which in those verses demands a public setting to make any sense.

On the other hand, Acts 7:17 demands no such public setting. It is God assuring Abraham of His promises. That is one-on-one, Abraham and God, no one else. Have you ever read a verse of Scripture and the Holy Spirit brought the truth of that verse home to you in such a wonderful way that you wanted to shout, “Hallelujah!!” Just you, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. No public setting needed.

That is the way it is, or can be, with our sin that interrupts fellowship with the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin, tells us our sin, and what are we to do? “Confess” our sin to the God Who showed it to us. In that instance, the meaning of “confess” is to agree with God that it IS sin, admitting our guilt of it, and His promise is to be faithful and just to forgive us that sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Your first definition of “confess” is just that—“1. to say the same thing as another, i.e. to agree with, assent.” That is what we are called to do. God by His Holy Spirit tells us, “You are guilty of such and such sin.” We “say the same thing”—“Yes, Lord, I admit that I am guilty of such and such sin. I agree with You.” And I would add, “Please forgive me.” And God gives us His promise when we do that, He will forgive our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” And there is NO reason that entire transaction cannot be totally private, between God and a wayward child of His. Of course, if the sin hurts another person, as many sins do, there may be need for restitution or confession to the other person. But strictly speaking, 1 John 1:9 speaks only of God and a wayward child of His, which can be totally private.

Sometimes I think you Catholics think that someone hasn’t really repented until he shouts his sins from the housetops. To me, that makes other people’s forgiveness more important than God’s, or what other people think more important than what God thinks. God knows our sins; we don’t have to shout them to Him. But we do need to “confess” or agree with Him regarding them.

One other note. What I see in the RCC is an almost extreme forgetting of the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of an individual believer. It is as if the RCC wants to play Holy Spirit for its members. God can’t on His Own tell people of their sins; He needs man to do that. He needs man to effect forgiveness. He needs man to teach man (cf. 1 John 2:27). He needs “priests” to get man to confess his sins. All the things that the Holy Spirit is supposed to do are given to man to do. This confession issue is just one of many examples of that. God can’t do without “priests”—even though Christ totally abrogated the idea of “priests” and He ALONE remains the ONLY mediator between God and man.

 

[jmcrae]

It is as if the RCC wants to play Holy Spirit for its members. God can’t on His Own tell people of their sins; He needs man to do that. He needs man to effe**ct forgiveness. He needs man to teach man (cf. 1 John 2:27). He needs “priests” to get man to confess his sins. All the things that the Holy Spirit is supposed to do are given to man to do. This confession issue is just one of many examples of that. God can’t do without “priests”—even though Christ totally abrogated the idea of “priests” and He ALONE remains the ONLY mediator between God and man.

It’s not God who needs these things; it’s us. Have you never had a child or close friend who was wandering down the wrong path, getting involved with the wrong sort of friends or wasting time on damaging pursuits, and needed your human guidance to get back on track?

Did you wait around for the Holy Spirit to “convict” your loved one, or did you step in and offer gentle (or perhaps not-so-gentle) correction, in the matter?

The fact is, we need each other, because we don’t always hear that still small voice - it gets drowned out by other things - most often, by sin, guilt, and fear. And when that still small voice is being drowned out by sin, guilt, and fear, it takes a human voice to cut through the noise and bring you back to where you need to be. God understands that about us, which is why He established a Church and a priesthood for us. We are not designed to be “lone rangers.”

Not even Abraham was a “lone ranger” even though for a long time he was the only person on earth who believed in God. Abraham had his family and tribe to help him, and to teach him things he needed to know. But Abraham was also very special. There is a whole generation of Christians who think that they can be like Abraham, and practice their religion privately, but if everyone could be Abraham, then he would not have been the only human being on earth in his generation, who believed in God. They all would have.

Most of us learned about God from someone else - probably our mothers, or a beloved Sunday School teacher, or even from reading the Scriptures (hey - eight Bishops!) - most of us don’t have the ability of Abraham to hear God’s voice speaking to them directly.

 

[Tomster]

Very thoughtful response and much more scholarly than is often seen on this forum. However, I must take issue with your conclusion that “every incidence of homologeo has a public aspect to it.” Most that you listed do, because that is the nature of confessing with the mouth so that an audience hears it, as in Matt. 10:32 and John 9:22, 12:42 , confessing Him before men or not confessing Him. But that is based on the CONTEXT which in those verses demands a public setting to make any sense.

On the other hand, Acts 7:17 demands no such public setting. It is God assuring Abraham of His promises. That is one-on-one, Abraham and God, no one else. Have you ever read a verse of Scripture and the Holy Spirit brought the truth of that verse home to you in such a wonderful way that you wanted to shout, “Hallelujah!!” Just you, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. No public setting needed.

That is the way it is, or can be, with our sin that interrupts fellowship with the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin, tells us our sin, and what are we to do? “Confess” our sin to the God Who showed it to us. In that instance, the meaning of “confess” is to agree with God that it IS sin, admitting our guilt of it, and His promise is to be faithful and just to forgive us that sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Your first definition of “confess” is just that—“1. to say the same thing as another, i.e. to agree with, assent.” That is what we are called to do. God by His Holy Spirit tells us, “You are guilty of such and such sin.” We “say the same thing”—“Yes, Lord, I admit that I am guilty of such and such sin. I agree with You.” And I would add, “Please forgive me.” And God gives us His promise when we do that, He will forgive our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” And there is NO reason that entire transaction cannot be totally private, between God and a wayward child of His. Of course, if the sin hurts another person, as many sins do, there may be need for restitution or confession to the other person. But strictly speaking, 1 John 1:9 speaks only of God and a wayward child of His, which can be totally private.

Sometimes I think you Catholics think that someone hasn’t really repented until he shouts his sins from the housetops. To me, that makes other people’s forgiveness more important than God’s, or what other people think more important than what God thinks. God knows our sins; we don’t have to shout them to Him. But we do need to “confess” or agree with Him regarding them.

One other note. What I see in the RCC is an almost extreme forgetting of the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of an individual believer. It is as if the RCC wants to play Holy Spirit for its members. God can’t on His Own tell people of their sins; He needs man to do that. He needs man to effect forgiveness. He needs man to teach man (cf. 1 John 2:27). He needs “priests” to get man to confess his sins. All the things that the Holy Spirit is supposed to do are given to man to do. This confession issue is just one of many examples of that. God can’t do without “priests”—even though Christ totally abrogated the idea of “priests” and He ALONE remains the ONLY mediator between God and man.

Actually, apart from the general teaching of the Gospels that Christ came to call sinners to repentance, certain texts explicitly declare that he gave to the Church the power to judge sinners effectively in God’s name. To St. Peter he made the promise first (Matthew 16:19). Using the same words, save for the necessary change in the number of the pronoun, he latter gave the same promise to all the apostles (Matthew 18:18). Finally, after his resurrection, he carried out this promise and conferred authority on them (John 20:21-23).

We can summarise the information to be drawn from these texts: Our Lord gave his Church wide discretionary powers, so that she can impose her obligations or remit them, and her action will be ratified by God; in particular she can forgive sins, or refuse to forgive; her authority in this matter is to be exercised judicially; this involves voluntary avowal of guilt, of sorrow and readiness to atone, on the part of the penitent; there is no limitation to this power, granted that the penitent is in the requisite condition; it is given not to the apostles alone, but also to their successors; only the officials of the Church, the priests, are able to exercise it; finally, subjection to the Church’s tribunal is necessary for a sinful Christian who desires pardon.

It is clear from his very words that our Lord gave the Church power to impose burdens or to remove them, and this includes the power to forgive sins. The metaphor of the keys, the general words use in all three texts, the explicit mention of the forgiveness or retention of sins, can have no other meaning. Isaias uses this same metaphor of the keys, “And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulders; and he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open.” (Isaias 22:22) This is the obvious meaning of the metaphor, that to St. Peter is given supreme power as God’s representative to exclude from or admit into heaven.

cont.

 

[Phil12123]

Would you then please explain to us how on the one hand Jesus said we must forgive our brother 7x70 times but then on the other hand he told his Apostles that they could retain sins?

Please be accurate.

Context, context, context. Do you see the different contexts of those two situations?

The first one involves two “brothers” and the general teaching that we must forgive each other, essentially, without limit.

The second one involves the preaching of the Gospel and what happens when someone hears it, repents and believes it—he is forgiven, his sins are forgiven—vs. someone hears it but rejects it—his sins are not forgiven but retained. The preacher in the latter case simply declares that his sins “have been retained.” It is not a matter of whether the preacher forgives anyone’s sins—that is up to God. But the preacher knows by the Holy Spirit whether the sins have been forgiven by God or have been retained by the sinner, and he declares that to the hearer. “Your sins have been forgiven” or “Your sins have been retained.”

I assume you have read all the prior posts in this discussion. If not, please do.

 

[Tomster]

As St. John Chysostom says: “Those who are living on earth are given the control of heavenly affairs, and have a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels; for it was not said to them, ‘Whatsoever,’ etc. Earthly rulers have indeed the power of binding but only over the body; this power of binding, however, concerns the soul itself, and controls heaven; whatever priests do below, God ratifies above, and the Lord confirms the decision of the servant. For what else did he give them than complete heavenly power? For he said, ‘What sins you shall remit they are remitted, and what sins you shall retain they are retained.’ What power could be greater than that? ’ The Father has given all judgement to the Son.’ And I see them entrusted with all this by the Son.” - St. John Chrysostom (344 A.D. - 407 A.D.) "De Sacerdotio, iii

This is so clearly a fair summary of the meaning of these texts that we can leave the saint’s explanation without further discussion. The Church, then, has power to bind and loose, and this power includes that of forgiving sin.