SPLIT: Confession to priest not necessary

[WindGirl]

Maybe you might wanna stick around and find out, Sis!

If you’re thinking that I might be drawn into wanting to join the Catholic Church, NO. That won’t happen. I’m probably here because I feel concern for Catholics but I don’t want to get into a big debate on that, ok?

 

[twosweetgirls]

If you’re thinking that I might be drawn into wanting to join the Catholic Church, NO. That won’t happen. I’m probably here because I feel concern for Catholics and, no, I don’t want to get into a big debate on that.

. . . shhhh. . . (whispering) just offering a gentle tug back is all. . . hands held up in conciliation. . .

 

[WindGirl]

. . . shhhh. . . (whispering) just offering a gentle tug back is all. . . hands held up in conciliation. . .

Okay. Hey, I will probably hang around, maybe not post as much but I’ll be around.

 

[Randy_Carson]

According to your little formula, then, Protestant Christians are not saved. So, therefore, why do Catholics keep calling us “separated brethren” and saying things like "we’re part of the church but not in full communion with “the church?” Why don’t you just tell us that unless we submit to the Roman Pope and become Catholic, we’re all going to hell? That would be honest.

Why, yes…to be saved, it is normatively necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. That’s exactly what Mr. Akin’s article suggests. The operative word, of course, is “normative”.

However, would you agree with Mr. Akin that you accept points one and two but take issue beginning with number 3?

 

[Lampo]

According to your little formula, then, Protestant Christians are not saved. So, therefore, why do Catholics keep calling us “separated brethren” and saying things like "we’re part of the church but not in full communion with “the church?” Why don’t you just tell us that unless we submit to the Roman Pope and become Catholic, we’re all going to hell? That would be honest.

Invincible Ignorance. Here is what it means and it applies to your statement above.

 

[Lampo]

According to your little formula, then, Protestant Christians are not saved.

Not true and the Catholic Church doesn’t teach such a thing. In fact, the Church doesn’t judge someone’s salvation unless she confirms the sainthood of someone.

So, therefore, why do Catholics keep calling us “separated brethren” and saying things like "we’re part of the church but not in full communion with “the church?”

Because that is the absolute truth.

Why don’t you just tell us that unless we submit to the Roman Pope and become Catholic, we’re all going to hell? That would be honest.

No, that would be inaccurate.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I really don’t know why I’m here for sure. I need to get back to spending more time at the Christian board I usually go to. I wish you well also.

I’m reminded of two verses:

Isaiah 30:11
Leave this way, get off this path, and stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!"

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

 

[Ginger2]

Why, yes…to be saved, it is normatively necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. That’s exactly what Mr. Akin’s article suggests. The operative word, of course, is “normative”.

However, would you agree with Mr. Akin that you accept points one and two but take issue beginning with number 3?

Solus Christus:
Bible: Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
RC: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”(Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).Pope!!!

Soli Deo gloria:
Bible: Isaiah 42:8 “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.”
RC: "Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought … calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. …God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, …” (St. Catherine)

 

[RubyT]

If you’re thinking that I might be drawn into wanting to join the Catholic Church, NO. That won’t happen. I’m probably here because I feel concern for Catholics but I don’t want to get into a big debate on that, ok?

Quote from Eduardo Siguenza in the book John Paul II The Pope Who Understood Fatima.
Siguenza was referring to the late James Cardinal Gibbons
“By this, he was stressing the need of a God given interpreter for the proper understanding of the faith. He explained, what good is the Constitution, without a Chief Justice to interpret it and apply it properly? The Constitution itself would become a dead letter.”

Cardinal Gibbons concluded, “Of course what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?” Who would protect us from confusion and division? The present existence in the world of over 25,000 different Christian sects is a sobering testimony to this!

I quote this to give a perspective on why Catholics are so adamantly fervent to our doctrine of confession to a priest. Interpretations by all of the sects divided from the Catholic Church are just that, interpretations. One can say why is the Pope the one to decipher, why should we believe the Popes interpretations?

I answer that it is because Jesus himself tells us to respect authority and pray for authority because they are put in place by God himself. To think that Christian sects’ interpretations are somehow more valid than the Pope, who is put in place by God, is rather preposterous. It makes the Bible just another book to be interpreted by any Christian sect as it wishes, by fallible men and fallible interpretations.

It makes sense to let the authority figure (put in place by God) do the interpreting for us. I think the Popes’ interpretations are infallible but for the sake of argument let’s say that: perhaps the Pope is not completely infallible. He is certainly less fallible than the divided Christian church sects throughout the world.

Humility is learned by confessing to the Priest. Humility will lead you to respect authority figures in the Church. Can you really learn humility by confessing your sins directly to God which seems rather convenient to me. Pretty easy to feel bad and say oh God I am so sorry. But to look an authority figure in the face (or through a screen) and admit what you have done, this takes much more strength and fortitude than a private conversation between you and God.

I say that confession directly to God (rather than a priest) is out of convenience and ease instead of true repentance and sorrow for offending God. How much more difficult to get up, get dressed, drive to the church and put yourself in a position where an authority figure can see you and hear you confess. This is much more than a silent prayer in your comfy home. This takes determination, true humility and strong conviction about getting forgiven. You are actually told by the priest what to do and that you are forgiven and must follow his instructions. This in itself is more convincing than the alternative, okay; I have prayed all is forgiven; now I just have to make restitution. It seems too easy and convenient to me. This is just my 2 cents. :twocents:

Nothing personal Windgirl, I am not trying to spread ill will. I am really glad you are here to debate this with us. You are most welcome and have made some strong arguments which had me thinking. Of course they didn’t sway me but it is always good to evaluate our beliefs. Have a wonderfully Merry Christmas. :christmastree1:

ah, da, am I supposed to be capitalizing the word priest/Priest. You know, I must have proper English. I need that proper English. The Proper English and writing skills. Help!!! I just hate those typos, can’t have the typos, typos driving me insane. AHHHHHHHH.

 

[Black_Knight_MI]

Thanks for your non confrontational and polite spirit. I really don’t know why I’m here for sure. I need to get back to spending more time at the Christian

board I usually go to. I wish you well also.You’re ON a Christian forum WG, or hadn’t you noticed?

If you’re thinking that I might be drawn into wanting to join the Catholic Church, NO. That won’t happen.

Let me just share an important scripture with you that might just open up your heart and mind.

Acts 5:38-40 (New International Version)

38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

I’m probably here because I feel concern for Catholics but I don’t want to get into a big debate on that, ok?

That makes no sense. What possible concern could you have for us Catholics? And if you hold some opinion that is so deeply in opposition to our most holy faith, then how can you not expect to enter into discussion and debate about them?

I suggest that you either open new thread here in Apologetics with the most important of your “concerns” as its topic so we can deal with them. Or just PM me personally with them and I’ll be happy to discuss them privately with you and hopefully resolve them.

Okay. Hey, I will probably hang around, maybe not post as much but I’ll be around.

Which is something else that I would encourage, though (to borrow a phrase from you) “If you’re thinking that” we “might be drawn into wanting to” leave “the Catholic Church, NO. That won’t happen.”

But then we’re back to that original question. if we’re already Christians, then what’s the problem?:ehh:

 

[RobHom]

“If you’re thinking that” we “might be drawn into wanting to” leave “the Catholic Church, NO. That won’t happen.”

I can most certainly “second” that!!

But then we’re back to that original question. if we’re already Christians, then what’s the problem?:ehh:

Again, I can “second” that!

Merry Christmas!!

 

[Black_Knight_MI]

Solus Christus:
Bible: Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
RC: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”(Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).Pope!!!

Unam Sanctam better explains itself in context.

UNAM SANCTAM (Promulgated November 18, 1302)

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep’ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’ We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords’ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard’ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: ‘There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God’ [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: ‘Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms’ and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man’ [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings

, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Look at who this letter was aimed at refuting…
(Cont’d)

 

[Black_Knight_MI]

Soli Deo gloria:
Bible: Isaiah 42:8 “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.”
RC: "Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought … calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. …God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, …” (St. Catherine)

Hot news flash lady, Catherine wasn’t an authoritative source even though she’s a Doctor of the Church, and no one has to share her opinion, but let’s look at what H. Lyman Stebbins, the founder of Catholics United for the Faith understood of St. Catherine of Siena comments and times and see that it really makes a lot better sense than what your specious comment and scripture quote are meant to infer.

I would like to digress and tell you at this point what St. Catherine of Siena advised. By the way, Lyman turned to her more and more in the later years for guidance because she also lived in a calamitous time, when the Church seemed to be self-destructive. Just imagine, the Pope absent from Rome for almost 70 years, up in a palace in Avignon, France. Just imagine the situation if John Paul II were to move to the luxurious Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida, and the popes were to live there for the next century. Speak of trials to the faith! But that was what St. Catherine was up against. Then later the terrible situation came about with an antipope against Urban VI—a split in the Church, worldly priests, worldly bishops, worldly cardinals, and even worldly popes. What should our attitude be toward bad shepherds? Here is a quote form St. Catherine:

Foolish then, is he who departs from the Vicar of Christ Crucified, who has the keys of the Blood, or who goes against him . . . Even though the pope were satan incarnate himself, I may not lift up my head against him, but I must always humble myself, and beg for the Blood as a mercy, for in no other wise can I obtain a part of it . . .

Notice, please that she did not deny that there were bad shepherds—quite the opposite; therefore, she uses the worst-case scenario, namely, if the pope were satan incarnate. Some say St. Catherine criticized the Pope. No, she never tolerated that. What she did do was speak deeply to his conscience, personally, with a fire of love for him whom she called “our sweet Christ on earth.” In this way she brought the Pope back to Rome. Concerning our attitude, she said:

Give not ear to what the devil whispers to you, that it is your duty to speak against the bad shepherds of the Church. Do not believe the devil, do not seek to pass judgment, where it is not for you to judge . . . It pleases not Our Savior; He says, “They are my anointed,” and the judgment upon them belongs to Him and not to you nor to any other creature.

You see how this applies to our situation. This is not the spirit of heretics and schismatics. This is the spirit of a saint.

Again, understanding what the writer intended is far more accurate and honest than trying to draw specious comparisons between scripture and out of context quotes.

(BTW: Anyone know where we can find the text of this alleged document?)

 

[Black_Knight_MI]

I can most certainly “second” that!!

Again, I can “second” that!

Merry Christmas!!

http://bestsmileys.com/christmas5/9.gif
http://bestsmileys.com/christmas4/11.gif
http://bestsmileys.com/christmas5/13.gif

 

[Randy_Carson]

Solus Christus:
Bible: Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
RC: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”(Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).Pope!!!

Soli Deo gloria:
Bible: Isaiah 42:8 “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.”
RC: "Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought … calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. …God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, …” (St. Catherine)

Bible: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.

And it is God’s command.

 

[edjco]

This interpretation is flawed. When Jesus proved he had authority to forgive sins, it stood as proof to the Jews that Jesus was God because only God can forgive sins.

Luk 5:21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
Mar 2:7 Why doth this [man] thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
Mat 9:2-3 …Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This [man] blasphemeth.

If the Apostles could forgive sins, it would be evidence to them that the Apostles were God.

The Jews were still persecuting the Apostles, yet they never accused them of claiming to forgive sins.

Ginger, do you realize in citing these passages that you are actually quoting the scribes and pharisees to prove your point?

It may be helpful to us all if you could answer the following:

Did Jesus give the apostles the power to forgive sins? Yes or no.

We know that apostles were replaced after they died, so do you believe that this power was passed on to new apostles? Yes or no.

If your answer is no, please cite the passage/passages where Jesus removed this authority from the apostles. Specific references please.

If you believe that this power was passed on to new apostles, who do you believe the successors to those apostles to be in modern times?

Windgirl, you are also welcome to answer, and thanks for the lively discussion!

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger, do you realize in citing these passages that you are actually quoting the scribes and pharisees to prove your point?

On the contrary, I was using them to disprove yours.

Having the authority to forgive sins is a sign of deity. Since Jesus is God incarnate he demonstrated his authority by forgiving sins. How do we know the sins were forgiving? By the miracles - even miracles that no one before nor after could perform.

If the Apostles could forgive sins, it would be evidence to the Jews that the Apostles were God.

The Jews were persecuting Jesus for claiming to be God. The Jews persecuted the Apostles for claiming Jesus is God.

It may be helpful to us all if you could answer the following:…

I believe we have already covered these questions.

 

[Randy_Carson]

On the contrary, I was using them to disprove yours.

Having the authority to forgive sins is a sign of deity. Since Jesus is God incarnate he demonstrated his authority by forgiving sins. How do we know the sins were forgiving? By the miracles - even miracles that no one before nor after could perform.

You continue to ignore the verse which states, “When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.” (Mt. 9:8)

To men? Why didn’t Matthew write, “to a man”? After all, the Jews witnessing this miracle would have thought that Jesus was only a man and not God incarnate at the timet. Yet, Matthew, writing years later, states that the Jews praised God for having given the authority to forgive sins “to men”. Why? Could it be that he wrote as he did (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) because at the time he wrote this gospel, he and the other Apostles had been hearing confessions for years! He understood the authority given to all of the Apostles by Jesus.

Matthew 18:18
I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

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

Now, some Protestant controversialists claim that this latter verse should be interpreted as meaning that the Apostles went about preaching the good news and that this spreading of the gospel enabled men who believed to be forgiven. However, this understanding is badly flawed for it fails to address the fact that the Apostles were also given the authority to NOT forgive the sins of men. How does the preaching of the gospel account for “retaining” or “binding” of sins?

If I were an apostle, and I preached the gospel in a village and some believed and were forgiven, then how would I NOT forgive the sins of some in that crowd? Does “not forgive” actually mean “not preach” in this context? Hardly. Would I, as an Apostle, have the discretion to NOT preach the gospel to some people if I thought their sinse were too great to be forgiven? How would I be fulfilling the great commission by NOT preaching? And are there some sins which are so great that Christ cannot or will not forgive them? Of course not. Then, would I have to call a few folks aside privately to inform them that ALTHOUGH THEY HAD HEARD THE GOSPEL AND BELIEVED THE GOOD NEWS, they were NOT forgiven? And how would I know that their sins were not to be forgiven without having heard them? By divine revelation? The absurdity of this interpretation is evident.

If the Apostles could forgive sins, it would be evidence to the Jews that the Apostles were God.

No, it would be evidence that God had given such authority to men. Jesus raised the dead, and this was evidence that He was God. So did Peter and Paul. By your logic, this should have been evidence that both of the Apostles were God. Clearly, your logic is flawed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I believe we have already covered these questions.

Then it should only take a few moments for you to summarize your answers for us.

I, too, am interested in hearing your answers to these questions laid out in a concise, logical manner for review.

Unless, of course, you don’t feel you can defend the logical inconsistencies in your position…in which case I don’t blame you for wanting to duck the questions.

 

[Ginger2]

Then it should only take a few moments for you to summarize your answers for us.

I, too, am interested in hearing your answers to these questions laid out in a concise, logical manner for review.

You want me to summarize a summary?

I think you must want me to expand upon what I’ve said.

1. Did Jesus give the apostles the power to forgive sins? Yes or no.

I’ve already said “no”

To expand, I’ve already said the Apostles cannot forgive sins in the same sense as God forgives.

Why, because the Holy Scriptures clearly state Only God can forgive sins. Jesus could forgive sins because Jesus is God incarnate. The Apostles cannot forgive sins as God forgives sins because they are not God.

Scriptures:
Who forgives sins?
Psa 103:3 Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;

Do we need to go to a priest to be forgiven, or can we go directly to God?
Psa 25:11 For thy name’s sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it [is] great.
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

Doesn’t say “I will confess to a priest and thou will forgive”

I guess that renders the second question irrelevant.