SPLIT: Confession to priest not necessary

[RobertLGarrett]

What’s with the knee jerk anger response? I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic. I thought I was asking a legitimate question. You need to remember I’m not a Catholic and I don’t believe what you do concerning Catholicism, it’s claims, it’s teachings, and it’s papacy. But I’m not trying to be purposefully sarcastic. Yet you come back, like other Catholics have, acting very superior, arrogant, and condescending. I don’t like that but I realize I’m on a Catholic board and that’s the way it goes.

p.s. what you see as authority figures and what I see are two different things. Also the apostle Paul said to follow him AS HE FOLLOWED CHRIST. What if he ceased to follow Christ? Or began to teach heresy. We don’t follow authority blindly. They’re subject to the same Scriptures we are. They depart from them and the authority departs. That’s my belief, you don’t have to agree.

Again, I absolutely love this! You don’t see your own “superior, arrogant, and condescending” tone? Why are you on CAF again? Because you are concerned about us, right? It is superior, arrogant and condescending to think that you know the truth and to go on a Catholic Forum to save Catholics.

If you stated that you were here to learn, that would be a different thing, but you are here out of “concern” for us. How nice.

 

[WindGirl]

Since I was open to the will of God, He led me to the Church His Son established on earth. There is nothing unhealthy about following the true teaching of His Church. Certainly, the Protestant movement has not led to any unified understanding of God. When people rely on their own personal feelings about Scripture, they are naturally going to lead themselves in a variety of directions.

So I should rely on someone else’s personal feelings about Scripture? Where does that leave me if they’re wrong? To my own Master I will stand or fall. If I’m going to be mistaken about something, I’d rather it be my mistaken than follow someone else’s.

 

[WindGirl]

Again, I absolutely love this! You don’t see your own “superior, arrogant, and condescending” tone? Why are you on CAF again? Because you are concerned about us, right? It is superior, arrogant and condescending to think that you know the truth and to go on a Catholic Forum to save Catholics.

If you stated that you were here to learn, that would be a different thing, but you are here out of “concern” for us. How nice.

I was speaking to Ruby, not you.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

So I should rely on someone else’s personal feelings about Scripture? Where does that leave me if they’re wrong? To my own Master I will stand or fall. If I’m going to be mistaken about something, I’d rather it be my mistaken than follow someone else’s.

It’s more than “someone else.” It is 2000 years of teaching handed down from the Apostles. So, yes, you should see that wisdom as being greater than your own. To do otherwise is the definition of arrogance.

WindGirl:

I was speaking to Ruby, not you.

Oh…my bad…I thought it was a post on a public forum…didn’t realize it was a PM to Ruby.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Then I think you have your answer to Mark 2:12

The Apostle’s were not performing miracles. No one really understood yet that Jesus was more then just a mere man.

“…they were filled with fear; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.”

is not referring to the disciples being able to do what Jesus did, because they hadn’t been given power to heal yet.

Ginger-

You haven’t answered the question.

Matthew did not write, “…they were filled with fear; and they praised God, who had given such authority to a man.” This is what we might expect him to have written if he were ascribing to the Jews a feeling of awe due to God giving a SINGLE man, Jesus, the authority to forgive sins – whether they failed to grasp that He was actually God incarnate or not.

No, twenty years after the fact, Matthew wrote “to men” - and this even though only one man forgave sins that day.

Why?

 

[RubyT]

I have concern for you, too. I think it’s unhealthy for you to think everything is all about the RCC and what it says. No offense intended. My heart isn’t set against the will of God but you’re entitled to your belief.

Everything isn’t all about the RCC. Everything is about our Heavenly Father and His love. Why do think otherwise? Because we talk about RCC. You can’t possbly know what is in our hearts. But I am enjoying our discussion and want you to stick around.

It never hurts to have a different opinion. It never hurts to question our beliefs. It never hurts to question our Church. You may think we blindly follow the church but we really do have intelligent minds that sift through the catecism and research it and draw our own conclusions. I will be darned if I can find any untruths in the catechism. My findings strengthen and deepen my faith.I keep searching just the same.

Please don’t label us as blind followers when in fact we are scrupulous and very interested in finding any real differences(not just interpretations) between the catecism and the Bible. Feel free to point them out to us my friend. Be well - this discussion is not an attack on you. This is simply a discussion among Christians of different denominational structures. If it ever seems other than that, please accept my apologies.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So I should rely on someone else’s personal feelings about Scripture? Where does that leave me if they’re wrong? To my own Master I will stand or fall. If I’m going to be mistaken about something, I’d rather it be my mistaken than follow someone else’s.

Where would we Catholics ever suggest that you follow someone else’s fallible, human interpretations?

No, we point you to God’s infallible Church and suggest that you listen to her.

 

[WindGirl]

It’s more than “someone else.” It is 2000 years of teaching handed down from the Apostles. So, yes, you should see that wisdom as being greater than your own. To do otherwise is the definition of arrogance.

That’s your viewpoint, not mine. Any of these supposed extra biblical teachings that supposedly are from the apostles must agree with the Bible or they didn’t come from the apostles. And we know that Catholics and non Catholics will not agree on whether or not something is compatible with the Bible.

 

[WindGirl]

Where would we Catholics ever suggest that you follow someone else’s fallible, human interpretations?

No, we point you to God’s infallible Church and suggest that you listen to her.

No offense. I can’t do that I don’t believe the same as you about the RCC. We non Catholic Christians prefer to examine whatever we’re told by Scripture, like the Bereans.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s your viewpoint, not mine. Any of these supposed extra biblical teachings that supposedly are from the apostles must agree with the Bible or they didn’t come from the apostles.

Really? PROVE THAT STATEMENT.

Where does the Bible teach that everything a Christian must believe for salvation or that can be known about our faith has to be in the Bible? Chapter and verse, please.

You see, this is your problem: The Evangelical starts with the assumption that scripture existed first and that tradition was slowly and incrementally added to it as time progressed. However, the original deposit of faith was given to the Apostles years before Scripture was ever penned. The Church was founded on this truth from Christ. Some of this deposit was then written in Scripture, some was scrupulously passed from bishop to bishop as oral tradition, and some was later clarified as dogma by the agreement of the bishops in the councils of the Church.

These sources, of course, should be expected not to contradict each other. If the Church teaches something as true, it is justifiable to check that it is not contradicted by Scripture. But if the Church teaches something and the Bible is silent or ambiguous, that does not mean the teaching is any less truly a part of the original deposit of faith given the Apostles. The focus must shift from what is biblical to what is true. The first is always contained in the second, but all of the second is not necessarily contained in the first.

When an Evangelical asks, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”, the correct response is “First show me from Scripture why you believe all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible.” It can be frustrating for Evangelicals to confront this issue, but it is important for them to understand the lack of biblical basis for their question. Truth is at issue here.

Adapted from Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie, pp.61-62.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No offense. I can’t do that I don’t believe the same as you about the RCC. We non Catholic Christians prefer to examine whatever we’re told by Scripture, like the Bereans.

The Bereans?

Perhaps you think these folks were “Bible Alone” believers like you? Hardly. Here’s why:

Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

Those who followed the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected Paul’s oral preaching and the long awaited Messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel and the Messiah.

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation.

 

[WindGirl]

Everything isn’t all about the RCC. Everything is about our Heavenly Father and His love. Why do think otherwise? Because we talk about RCC. You can’t possbly know what is in our hearts. But I am enjoying our discussion and want you to stick around.

No, I can’t know what’s in indiviual hearts, just impressions I get after I and other Christians have dialogued over the years with many different Catholics. I’m sure not all of you are exactly the same.

It never hurts to have a different opinion. It never hurts to question our beliefs. It never hurts to question our Church. You may think we blindly follow the church but we really do have intelligent minds that sift through the catecism and research it and draw our own conclusions. I will be darned if I can find any untruths in the catechism. My findings strengthen and deepen my faith.I keep searching just the same.

I’m glad you do. I’ve talked to some Catholics who will blindly accept whatever the RCC says.

Please don’t label us as blind followers when in fact we are scrupulous and very interested in finding any real differences(not just interpretations) between the catecism and the Bible. Feel free to point them out to us my friend. Be well - this discussion is not an attack on you. This is simply a discussion among Christians of different denominational structures. If it ever seems other than that, please accept my apologies.

Okay, I don’t think you ALL are but I also think there are some who are. That’s what I’ve gotten anyway. Your apology is accepted. I really need to get off this computer.

 

[edjco]

Windgirl and Ginger, there’s a whole lot of things that I think you are missing here.

First of all you should understand that no Catholic believes that a priest has the power to forgive sins on his own. Only God can do that. Just as God used men to heal illness, he also used/uses men to heal souls. We believe that God is acting THROUGH the priest to forgive sins. The priest can’t do it without God. If you disagree with us, that’s fine, we just ask that you disagree with what we actually believe in, not your opinion of what we believe.

If you don’t believe that Jesus granted the apostles the power to forgive sin, then not even an obvious statement like “whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained” will convince you. Neither will a passage like “No matter of prophecy is open to private interpretation”.

That’s the problem with the flawed belief that the Holy Spirit guides each one of us in our private interpretation of the Bible. If the Holy Spirit in fact guided each person into a true personal interpretation of Scripture, then there wouldn’t be 30,000 Protestant denominations, each with their own “Pope” and each claiming infallibility, while there remains, 2,000 years later, one, holy, catholic, apostolic church.
Here’s an example I hope you will note: From the time of the Reformation, EVERY SINGLE Christian church believed that birth control was an evil act up until 1930. (The “Rapture” belief was another 20 years away…) One church fell because it was not popular. Then another, and another and finally almost all 30,000 believe birth control is ok. One church held fast to it’s beliefs and has not waivered to this day. One church realizes that even though an issue such as birth control is not popular, that faith and morals don’t change with popular opinion.

As to interpretation of Scripture, let me say the following. We are here arguing the meaning of lines in a book. What you fail to do is to ask the author. If you didn’t understand a technical manual, would you just decide what’s correct on your own, or would you consult the author? We as Catholics, consult the author, the Magesterium (teaching authority) of the Church which is also infallible. If you doubt that, find me ONE instance where the Magesterium of the Catholic Church reversed it’s position on matters of faith and morals in the past 2,000 years. Instead, you probably laugh when people make fun of the Catholic belief against contraception.
You see, the Catholic Church was founded in 33 A.D. by Jesus Christ. (Protestant Pastors conveniently call these Catholics “early Christians” until they get to the Reformation, then they are either Protestants or Catholics.)
About 370 YEARS LATER, the Catholic Church wrote the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church decided which books were to be included, and which omitted.
The Bible you read came to you (in it’s original form) from none other than the Catholic Church.
About ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED YEARS later, a group of men decided they had a better way. They broke off from the Church that Christ founded.
They decided to “retranslate” the Bible. As their source material, they used documents from the Catholic Church.
They decided to remove seven books from the Bible, and some chapters from others.
Strangely, these seven books bolster Catholic beliefs such as intecessory prayers and prayers for the dead among others.
These men, at different points in time, also whittled away Sacraments (including the Sacrament of Reconciliation), and beliefs to suit their will.
They did away with the priesthood, to the point where now all someone has to do is to be appointed Pastor by a board of a church and bingo, you are Christ’s representative on Earth.
(That Pastor may then guide his flock in whatever his personal interpretation of Scripture may be, that is, until he teaches something contrary to the beliefs of the church board, then he or she is removed and a “successor” appointed.
Not one of these Pastors can trace his or her lineage, from the person who layed hands on him (if someone did at all), back to the apostles.)
Anyway, almost immediately, that church had some who disagreed with certain things and split off. Others then split and so on until you have 30,000 splits and growing.
Does that sound like the "one, holy, catholic (universal) and apostolic church that Christ founded? No way, no how.
And here we are, 2,000 years later, arguing about the meaning of the words which the Catholic Church wrote.
You dismiss scripture itself with your own interpretation.
I bet you will also dismiss the numerous texts of the Early Church Fathers who also spoke of an oral confession to a priest.
Here’s one for you:
“In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance…when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord.” Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).
And here’s something else interesting: the statement you just read is older than the determination of the canon of the Bible!

 

[RobertLGarrett]

That’s your viewpoint, not mine. Any of these supposed extra biblical teachings that supposedly are from the apostles must agree with the Bible or they didn’t come from the apostles. And we know that Catholics and non Catholics will not agree on whether or not something is compatible with the Bible.

Exactly, and as self-appointed Pope and Magisterium, you get to decide what Jesus really meant according to your own feelings. I’m sure that you have no disagreement whatsoever with the Church of WindGirl.

 

[RubyT]

So I should rely on someone else’s personal feelings about Scripture? Where does that leave me if they’re wrong? To my own Master I will stand or fall. If I’m going to be mistaken about something, I’d rather it be my mistaken than follow someone else’s.

I was speaking to Ruby, not you.

But you did respond to Roberts quote. see post 161&162

 

[Catholicc]

Exactly, and as self-appointed Pope and Magisterium, you get to decide what Jesus really meant according to your own feelings. I’m sure that you have no disagreement whatsoever with the Church of WindGirl.

We didn’t choose Peter, Jesus did

Who chose Jack Chick?

 

[edjco]

So I should rely on someone else’s personal feelings about Scripture? Where does that leave me if they’re wrong? To my own Master I will stand or fall. If I’m going to be mistaken about something, I’d rather it be my mistaken than follow someone else’s.

That’s exactly the problem. You should NEVER rely on someone else’s personal feelings about Scripture. You should rely on SOMETHING else’s teachings on Scripture. That something is the Magesterium, the teaching authority of the Church that Christ founded, which He called the pillar and foundation of truth, Christ’s bride.
If Christ’s bride were the 30,000 Protestant denominations, then he would have 30,000 brides…Doesn’t that make sense to you, that your belief in personal interpretation does not work (again, note the 30,000 different churches with different beliefs), but ours does, and has worked for 2,000 years without change?

Now, under your system of belief, that “someone” you mentioned did not get a fair shake from God. God, in His infinite wisdom, let that person interpret Scripture in error, and to his own destruction, by your way of thinking. Does that sound like a kind and loving God?

Now here’s one example: Timothy McVeigh was a “saved” Christian. He accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Saviour. He too, personally interpretated the Bible (as you say), guided by the Holy Spirit.
He then used those “beliefs” to murder 194 innocent men, women and children. Do you think he made it to Heaven because he only made an innocent mistake in his interpretation of Scripture? Just as a Catholic may not use his interpretation of Scripture to do wrong, neither may a Protestant.
Do you think Mother Theresa, who devoted her life to the poor and sick made it to Heaven? Certainly not! She was baptized as an infant!!!

But I have to ask. Every Protestant I know says that they are guided by the Holy Spirit in their personal interpretation of Scripture. Every one says they find it ridiculous that we Catholics listen to our Church’s interpretation of Scripture.
Yet, every one of them relies on his/her Pastor’s (and Sunday School teacher’s) opinion as to what a particular passage means. EVERY SINGLE ONE. (And unless you can interpret the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, you are depending on a MAN to do that for you. Of course, all Bible interpretations are exactly the same, though, right? They must be, they are all guided by the Holy Spirit.) The 2,000 year old Church that Christ founded has no authority of interpretation, yet their 35 year old Pastor with (maybe) a bachelor’s in theology has infallible authority.
I never seem to see Protestants disagree with their Pastor unless it’s something like tithing or drinking alcohol for instance. (Remember, I married into a Southern Baptist family) So basically, it is in fact, the blind following of a man, the same thing you accuse us of.

Now, back to your original quote above. What if WE are wrong? We will say, "Sorry, God. I followed the teaching of the Church that You established and called the “pillar and foundation of the truth. I understood that when You said ‘truth’ that You meant for me to go to the church to understand Your word, and I believed You, Lord when You said that no part of this scripture was open to private interpretation. I also believed You when You told me to eat Your body and drink your blood and I would have eternal life; and when You said ‘this is my body’ and when You said ‘do this in memory of me’, I did it Lord. I also believed You, Lord when you said that 'every generation wouId call your Mother blessed, and I did, Lord. I must have been wrong. Forgive me.”
Hopefully He will forgive my mistake.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

But I have to ask. Every Protestant I know says that they are guided by the Holy Spirit in their personal interpretation of Scripture. Every one says they find it ridiculous that we Catholics listen to our Church’s interpretation of Scripture.

Yet, every one of them relies on his/her Pastor’s (and Sunday School teacher’s) opinion as to what a particular passage means. EVERY SINGLE ONE. (And unless you can interpret the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, you are depending on a MAN to do that for you. Of course, all Bible interpretations are exactly the same, though, right? They must be, they are all guided by the Holy Spirit.) The 2,000 year old Church that Christ founded has no authority of interpretation, yet their 35 year old Pastor with (maybe) a bachelor’s in theology has infallible authority.

I never seem to see Protestants disagree with their Pastor unless it’s something like tithing or drinking alcohol for instance. (Remember, I married into a Southern Baptist family) So basically, it is in fact, the blind following of a man, the same thing you accuse us of.

I was going to bring this up, as well. I know some non-Catholics are very proud of the fact that they have learned the Bible backwards and forwards (and many Catholics do need to study the Bible more), but they don’t interpret the Bible themselves. They rely on their pastors and theologians past and present. Even if the individual believer learns the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, they are more than likely going to be swayed by the Protestant interpretations they’ve read by Luther, Calvin, Wesley or the modern theologians who followed them. No matter what, we are trusting “someone else.”

The reason anti-Catholic theologians such as Hahn convert to the Catholic Church is that when they research the Church Fathers and the Didache, they come to the realization that the Truth as understood by the Apostles and their students (the Church Fathers) matches the teaching of the Church today. So, the question is not one of whose interpretation you prefer. The question is where is the authority? The authority and true teaching lies in the Holy Catholic Church.

 

[broski234]

I missed that post. It wasn’t directed to me.

But the Bible says the Holy Spirit will guide us to truth. It doesn’t say Peter and his successors, it says the HS.

Thank you for asking.

Ginger,
So if the Bible says that the HS will guide us to truth, and Catholics believe in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and You don't, yet we both claim the guidance of the HS; who's right? Isn't it your interpretation vs. mine? What makes your interpretation better or more accurate? Who decides who's right? You have no way to really know for sure. However, you are wrong in saying that the HS will guide US into truth because in that passage, Jesus is talking to Peter and the apostles. Just FYI. And you never answered my post #121

 

[broski234]

We already know that it’s the church. First, we don’t share your view of church. Second, that Scripture needs to be looked at closer. It’s not giving final authority on what the truth is to the church nor is it placing the church in authority over the Scriptures. What it’s saying is that the church upholds and is grounded in the truth. Jesus tell us that God’s word is the truth in John 17:17. So the church is to be the pillar and ground of the word of God. Can a church be such if it teaches contradictory to the Scriptures/word if God? No, God and His word are still the authority. Christ’s church will uphold that authority, not make itself the authority.

I’m sorry WG, but that is just intellectual dishonesty. Clearly your view of the Church is flawed. Christ instituted a visible, authoritative Church so that when he could no longer physically be here with us, we would have a physical connection with him here on Earth. Matt 18 clearly describes the authoritative Church.