SPLIT: Why do Catholics believe they must go to a priest for confession?

[Randy_Carson]

Note, too, the use of the pronouns “we”, “us”, and “you” in this passage. When speaking strictly of the ministry of reconciliation, Paul says that God “gave us the ministry of reconciliation” and that “we are therefore Christ’s ambassadors as though God were making his appeal through us.” Then, he says “We implore you” to be reconciled. Clearly, there are two groups: those who have the ministry of reconciliation and those to whom he is speaking of being reconciled. The “you” – his audience – to whom he is speaking does not share in that ministry. Therefore, we can understand that some have the responsibility to reconcile men to God and some do not. This ministry is consistent with the function of the priesthood. For example, consider the following passage from the Gospel of Matthew:

“When he came down from the mountainside, large crowds followed him. A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cured of his leprosy. Then Jesus said to him, “See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” (Matthew 8:1-4)

In this passage, we see that Jesus healed the man of leprosy, but He still directs the man to show himself to the priest at the temple and to offer the sacrifice commanded by the law. Why? First, in doing so, the man’s cure gave testimony about Jesus because the miracle performed was a sign of Christ’s divine nature. Second, the priest confirmed the healing and reconciled the man to society which he was then allowed to re-enter.

Confession to a priest is very similar to this. As Patrick Madrid notes in his book, Does the Bible Really Say That?, “No [one] can make a good sacramental confession without first confessing directly to God. Only then can one properly receive the sacrament of confession, receiving sacramental absolution from the priest, who ministers in persona Christi (in the person of Christ).” This refers back to the ministry of reconciliation Paul described above. Once the penitent has confessed his sin to God, shown himself to be truly contrite and received absolution (offering the sacrifice or penance prescribed by the priest), he is reconciled to both God and the Body of Christ and, in the case of grave matter, allowed to re-enter the sacramental life of the Church.

Paul also wrote:

2 Corinthians 2:10 (KJV)
10To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;

2 Corinthians 2:10 (Douay Rheims)
And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

Clearly, the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.

Can we go directly to God for the forgiveness of our sins? Of course, but the scriptures just presented suggest that the normative means of forgiveness is by confession to a priest, and while it is true that only God can forgive sins, the Bible teaches that He has chosen to do so through the ordained priesthood and the Sacrament of Reconciliation that He Himself instituted. We see this in the Letter of James (which Martin Luther called an “epistle of straw”):

“Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.” (James 5:14-16)

“Presbyter” is the word from which we get our English word “priest”. It means “elder”. James encourages us to call a priest to pray and anoint someone who is ill – a passage from which we get the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. The prayer of this righteous man will not only heal the sick, but will forgive any sins that they may have committed. This passage confirms the ministry of forgiveness of sins which the Church carries out in Christ’s name.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you find me any of them that taught “Unless you confess your mortal sins to god before death you are separated from God for all of eternity.”

Sure the option was there if you needed it, but confession to God alone works just the same for those of us with true faith who knows god forgives us, without having to hear a human being say it.

One other question or two concerning the following passage:

John 20:23
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

What sins would the apostles “retain”? Simple sins or more serious sins?

And why would they retain the sin of the penitent? Perhaps because they judged that the person confessing the sin was not truly repentant?

And if the apostle refused absolution, would the person then simply go home and confess that same sin to God alone in order to obtain from God what had been denied to him by God’s chosen apostle?

Is that the sort of toothless authority you envision God conveyed upon the apostles?

“Whatever you bind on earth is also bound in heaven.”

 

[Gorgias]

1. You are working under the impression that EVERYTHING God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, the Apostles, etc said is written down in the Bible.

This is the point that’s been raised a few times in this thread, by a few people. [user]UnArmed[/user] hasn’t affirmed that he’s even seen this point; it would be interesting to hear what his response is to it.

 

[Bookcat]

Booth came later…not enough wood in the area then

And as you know the booth is not needed…I have been to Confession in a closet…in a Church…in a parking lot…in a field…in a car…

---

I too am a “convert”…received into full communion with the Church in 1989…so for some 26 years now.

I understand that you are now living as a Protestant - and hence the Protestant approach to Sacred Scripture (which is only a few hundred years old really) is what is part of the root of your difficulty here.

The Bible though is not meant to be a dictionary of doctrine…as if everything that Jesus gave us or taught is there for us to look up. Or taken “alone”. It was not written that way nor intended that way.

It is the written and inspired* Word of God but God did not intend the Bible to be a dictionary of doctrine. Indeed the nature of much of the New Testament is “partial” *consisting of Letters that addressed particular issues- on particular occasions. Those letters presumed there was a great deal more that is not written there in them. And even referred back to such -saying to live what they had been taught.

Jesus founded a Church…(did not just hand them the Sacred Scriptures) and gave authority to that Church …to the Apostles and those who they would appoint and then those who they would appoint etc down through the ages. He sent out that Church to make disciples of all the world…etc…

The books and letters that make up splendid little book we call the New Testament - were not even decided upon for a few hundred years…after a few hundred years of the life of the Church. Decided upon by the Church that Jesus founded - that yes believed in the Sacrament of Confession.

Those books and letters were precious and preserved in the Liturgy and Life of the Church - but were never intended to be that “dictionary of doctrine” that Protestantism presumes. Much of it is “partial” and “occasional letters”. And it is that Church that he founded that has the final interpretation - which has the authority to bind and loose and to say yes this is by divine requirement.

Jesus never said “write” (that we know of ) but “teach” and “make disciples” etc. Though of course the Bible is the Written Word of God - there is no question there - but it was not intended to stand alone or be a dictionary of doctrine.

For those who have set aside the life they have been given in faith and baptism - they need to be returned to that life - in the way that Jesus gave us - in the confession of their sins and their sins being absolved and gone in his blood via that Sacrament - via the Authority given by Christ to do so.

As Paul noted - those who do XY and Z will not enter the kingdom of God.…

they have as we would further say gone against their Baptism or as the early Christians put it a little later they have taken the way of death not of life. They need to return to that way of life and the way Given by Jesus is via the Sacrament of Penance…where Jesus restores them to that life they have turned away from…

In *Jesus Christ of Nazareth the Lord *and thus in his Church and all of his Sacraments - is true life. Including the splendid reality we now call the Sacrament of Penance or Confession etc.

 

[UnArmed]

To say the Bible doesn’t even hint at it is not true. That is your own interpretation that you are using based on your own opinion as primary. You’ve put the lens of your wants and desires on first and then looked at the scripture.

Can you please point out to me where the Bible does hint at confession to a priest?

So you place that lens first and then see the hints in scripture, the discussions in the church fathers, and THE LIVING TRADITION of the church…every church with apostolic lineage, and it becomes very very hard to justify denial in anyway other than by saying, "I don’t like it and I don’t want it…I. I. I.

This has absolutely nothing to do with it at all. I did enjoy confession and the way I felt when I left there. I came in with loads of guilt and sin and I left feeling relieved. Saying I didn’t like it is placing an idea on me that isn’t true. I am saying that Christ never mandated confession to a priest, because its a fact, he did not.

 

[UnArmed]

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all** sin. we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

If we confess our sins…that’s not even a hint to you?

Jesus knows our sins, how is keeping them inside us confessing? How is telling him in prayer what he knows already “confessing”. Seeking forgiveness sure. Repenting. Ok. But confessing implies saying aloud.**

No, 1 John 1:9 is not even a hint to me at confession to a priest. It is a hint to confess my sins to God because he is faithful and just.

How is confessing our sins to God “keeping them inside of us”…I confess my sins to God aloud daily. None are kept inside of me. And you state how is telling him in prayer what he knows already “confessing”? This is absurd. No matter what you do he already knows it. If you go to the confessional three times a day, he already knows what you are going to say before you go in, so that argument is flawed. If we thought that way, then why even pray at all, because he already knows it beforehand. sigh

 

[UnArmed]

How do you know Peter and Paul never said it? That’s a rather huge claim you’re making.

What is true is that the Church has, from its first days, practiced sacramental confession.

So it is your claim that since the first days of the Church, it was stated that confession of mortal sins to a priest were “mandatory”. Hence, mandatory being the key word here.

Please support your claim.

 

[UnArmed]

:ehh: So your OP was simply bait, after all. :tsktsk:

End of discussion, your mind is made up. Why are you here?

I am here because I want to discuss theological matters, and due to the fact that I can be…

Why are you here? Just so everything you say people will agree with and preach to the choir constantly?

Opposing opinions to yours aren’t allowed, eh?

 

[UnArmed]

“Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain them”

John 21:25

This can be turned around on both of you. Because, how do you know in fact that Jesus never said confession to a priest was not needed?

 

[UnArmed]

On the evening of the Resurrection, Jesus appeared in the midst of the apostles and said to them:

“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.” (John 20:21-23)

Jesus says, “As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.” Elsewhere in the gospels, Jesus tells the apostles that the Father has sent him into the world with “all authority”. In like manner, Jesus commissions them with the authority He has been given – authority the apostles will need to carry out the mission He has entrusted them with.

Notice that Jesus prefaces his remarks about forgiveness by saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Fr. Dowling rightly notes here that the capacity to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us is a far greater thing than the ability to forgive sins. If the former is possible, the latter does not seem impossible.

Unless we assume that Jesus has also given the apostles the ability to read minds, this passage presupposes that there is a hearing of the sins in order for a judgment to be made as to whether the sins should be forgiven or retained, depending on whether or not the person is truly sorry for his or her sins. Without sorrow for sins, there can be no forgiveness; even God cannot forgive an unrepentant sinner or hardened heart. In saying “if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven”, Jesus precludes the possible argument that He was merely giving the apostles the authority to preach the message of forgiveness. Clearly, the apostles were to judge and forgive or retain the sins of men.

Matthew’s Gospel provides another important passage revealing God’s intention for the power Jesus shares with His Church:

“Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.” (Matthew 9:2-8)

The central focus of this story is not the healing of the paralyzed man but the revelation of the authority of Jesus. Why does this passage indicate that this authority has been passed on to the Church? Verse eight says, “When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.” Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Matthew records correctly that the authority to forgive sins had been given not to a single man, Jesus, but to men. We can know this because he is not quoting the comments of the crowd in this verse but ascribing to them the proper reason for why they were filled with awe. Additionally, we know that Matthew wrote this passage some 20-25 years after the event described thus giving us the assurance that he had plenty of time to reflect upon the truth of what he has just written and had seen the forgiveness of sins through confession in actual practice in the early Church. If this were not the case, then Matthew would not have written as he did.

Paul also talks about the ministry of forgiveness that has been passed on from Jesus. In his second letter to the church in Corinth we read:

“All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:18-20)

Here Paul speaks of both the message and the ministry of reconciliation. Forgiveness of sins is proclaimed as part of the good news; actual reconciliation through confession and absolution is administered through the sacrament. In this way, the Church completes the mission of Jesus by preaching, by baptizing, and by forgiving sins.

(cont.)

Like I have stated numerous times already, giving the apostles the ability to forgive sins and telling us we have to confess to them is two entirely different ideas.

“HAVE TO” being the key words here. I understand they were not mind readers, and I am not meaning that. I am meaning nowhere is it stated we are under direct orders that we must do this.

I don’t see what is so hard about understanding that just because someone has the ability to do someone, doesn’t mean an imposition on the whole church was made that this was the only way mortal sins would be forgiven if contrition was imperfect.

 

[UnArmed]

One other question or two concerning the following passage:

John 20:23
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

What sins would the apostles “retain”? Simple sins or more serious sins?

And why would they retain the sin of the penitent? Perhaps because they judged that the person confessing the sin was not truly repentant?

And if the apostle refused absolution, would the person then simply go home and confess that same sin to God alone in order to obtain from God what had been denied to him by God’s chosen apostle?

Is that the sort of toothless authority you envision God conveyed upon the apostles?

“Whatever you bind on earth is also bound in heaven.”

Can you cite an instance anywhere during the whole of Church history where an apostle did not forgive an individual confession?

 

[Church_Militant]

Like I have stated numerous times already, giving the apostles the ability to forgive sins and telling us we have to confess to them is two entirely different ideas.

“HAVE TO” being the key words here. I understand they were not mind readers, and I am not meaning that. I am meaning nowhere is it stated we are under direct orders that we must do this.

I don’t see what is so hard about understanding that just because someone has the ability to do someone, doesn’t mean an imposition on the whole church was made that this was the only way mortal sins would be forgiven if contrition was imperfect.

I’m really surprised that no one has blown your lack of Biblical support argument out of the water already. Here…lemme get that for you okay?

**James 5:[13] Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. [14] Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;
[15] and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. [16] Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. **

There’s your Biblical mandate straight from an apostle.

Here’s a couple of other sources that may also help.
Catholic Confession
Scriptures About Penance

One of my favorites is from John Martignoni.
Why do Catholics confess their sins to a priest, rather than going directly to God?

Well, the quick answer is because that’s the way God wants us to do it. In James 5:16, God, through Sacred Scripture, commands us to “confess our sins to one another.” Notice, Scripture does not say confess your sins straight to God and only to God…it says confess your sins to one another.

In Matthew, chapter 9, verse 6, Jesus tells us that He was given authority on earth to forgive sins. And then Scripture proceeds to tell us, in verse 8, that this authority was given to “men”…plural.

In John 20, verses 21-23, what is the 1st thing Jesus says to the gathered disciples on the night of His resurrection? “Jesus said to them, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’” How did the Father send Jesus? Well, we just saw in Mt 9 that the Father sent Jesus with the authority on earth to forgive sins. Now, Jesus sends out His disciples as the Father has sent Him…so, what authority must Jesus be sending His disciples out with? The authority on earth to forgive sins. And, just in case they didn’t get it, verses 22-23 say this, “And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’”

Why would Jesus give the Apostles the power to forgive or to retain sins if He wasn’t expecting folks to confess their sins to them? And how could they forgive or retain sins if no one was confessing their sins to them?

The Bible tells us to confess our sins to one another. It also tells us that God gave men the authority on Earth to forgive sins. Jesus sends out His disciples with the authority on earth to forgive sins. When Catholics confess our sins to a priest, we are simply following the plan laid down by Jesus Christ. He forgives sins through the priest…it is God’s power, but He exercises that power through the ministry of the priest.

 

[UnArmed]

I’m really surprised that no one has blown your lack of Biblical support argument out of the water already. Here…lemme get that for you okay?

**James 5:[13] Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. [14] Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;
[15] and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. [16] Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. **

There’s your Biblical mandate straight from an apostle.

Here’s a couple of other sources that may also help.
Catholic Confession
Scriptures About Penance

One of my favorites is from John Martignoni.
Why do Catholics confess their sins to a priest, rather than going directly to God?

In keeping with James chapter 5, I am going to confess my sins to friends tonight at church, since he is so clearly to confess our sins to one another, not priests.

But even if that, I am merely saying we are not commanded to confess our sins to priests, thats all, only that we can.

Can you imagine if only, it would have been written there “and confess your sins to a priest”…wow…no arguments would exist any longer.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This can be turned around on both of you. Because, how do you know in fact that Jesus never said confession to a priest was not needed?

Because the church he left us says it is, that church has authority given by Christ.

“Whoever hears you heard me”

So even if they invented this practice today I would not have a problem with it. I hear the church as if Christ is speaking to me…because he is.

 

[Gorgias]

Like I have stated numerous times already, giving the apostles the ability to forgive sins and telling us we have to confess to them is two entirely different ideas.

I can’t say that I entirely agree, but I see your point.

Still, what good is it to provide a sacrament, though, if there’s no mandate to avail one of it? If you want to take your argument to absurdity, you can say the same thing about any one of the sacraments: “do this in memory of me” – but, that doesn’t mean that there’s a requirement to do it; “baptize all nations” – but, that doesn’t mean that there’s a mandate. If Jesus didn’t mean us to partake of the Eucharist, then why do we see the Institution Narrative in three Gospels and the Bread of Life discourse in the fourth?

“HAVE TO” being the key words here. I understand they were not mind readers, and I am not meaning that. I am meaning nowhere is it stated we are under direct orders that we must do this.

Folks have already quoted James and 1 John to you. Both of these provide commands, do they not? I mean, they don’t mention timeframes (“confess your sins once a year”), but they’re commands, right?

I don’t see what is so hard about understanding that just because someone has the ability to do someone, doesn’t mean an imposition on the whole church was made that this was the only way mortal sins would be forgiven if contrition was imperfect.

Well, John’s epistle does talk about sins that lead to death, and makes it clear that intercessory prayer is insufficient!

But, let’s get to the meat of your objection: you’re not convinced that the Church has the authority to regulate the sacraments. After all, if they’re Christ-given, and Jesus founded a Church and gave it authority, doesn’t it necessarily follow that Jesus’ Church has the authority to regulate the sacraments? 'Cause, after all, that’s what “if contrition is imperfect” is all about – it’s the Church, setting standards for one’s sacramental life.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you cite an instance anywhere during the whole of Church history where an apostle did not forgive an individual confession?

Of course not.

First, confessionals are sealed, and no one knows what is or is not forgiven,

Second, I consequently do not expect written records of these matters.

Third, I CAN give you an example of an apostle not forgiving someone who lied and did not give that person time to confess:

Acts 5

5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Should Peter have pulled either Ananias or Sapphira aside to give them a chance to confess their sins?

 

[Gorgias]

Can you cite an instance anywhere during the whole of Church history where an apostle did not forgive an individual confession?

You could, in a certain sense, make the claim that this is precisely what’s going on in the story of Peter and Simon the Magician in Acts 8.

There, Simon sins, and Peter rebukes him. Peter tells him to repent – but doesn’t forgive him, since he sees that Simon is “filled with bitter gall and in the bonds of iniquity.” Tellingly, Simon does not repent, but merely asks Peter to pray that he not die.

In this passage, there’s clearly sin and a call for repentance; there’s a request to pray for forgiveness (just as penitents do when they pray the ‘act of contrition’ – so that the priest may identify that they do, in fact repent of their sins and wish to not sin again); but, there’s no indication that Simon repents, and therefore, there’s no absolution.

It stretches the story, of course, to say that we’re watching a formal instance of the sacrament of reconciliation play out – however, all the elements are there of a sin that’s “held bound” by an apostle.

 

[littlesoul]

I totally understand what you are talking about UnArmed. I was wondering if you had decided not to go to confession anymore? have you not gone and still received communion? How did that make you feel? Were you scared? I’d be scared of offending God. But yet I do understand your point completely. I do know though that God wants us to be obedient and that probably means being obedient to our church also. Do you think?

 

[adamhovey1988]

I am still confused on why Catholics believe they ‘have’ to go to confession.

I understand that Jesus told his apostles whoever sins they forgave would be forgiven, and whosoever sins they retained would be retained…however our Lord never said anything about people ‘must’ confess their sins to the apostles.

In fact the only time in the entire Scriptures where we are told anything about confessing our sins to human beings, was in James, “confess your sins to one another”…this would have been a perfect opportunity for St. James to tell us to confess our sins to a priest, but instead he chose to say, confess to one another.

I can find nowhere in the Scriptures or the early church where people were lining up to kneel behind a screen and confess their sins to god in the presence of a priest.

Even in the sinners prayers Jesus taught us to say “Forgive us our sins”…

Just the point I am trying to make here is this, Jesus never told us we MUST confess our sins to a priest for forgiveness. Indeed it does appear he gave us the option, by telling the apostles they could forgive sins, but he didn’t say they and they alone…because who can forgive sins but god alone…

I see that you are not familiar with the Old Testament then.