What are Protestant concerns with the sacrament of confession?

[dessert]

Happygal if you would just try confession to a priest you might like it. Mine is very objective and has been aroound for 35 years so he gives good advice and so there is more to this than just confession. I know I can talk to him about anything and if I’'m not in a tallking mood that is ok too. Sometimes there creates problems when you start confessing all your laundry to others but I also try to go to the person that I know I have offended and I can tell by the scowl they give me I’ve done something to upset ther cookie cart. Priest do hear everything and if he tells me to say 4 our fathers I know this will get me back on the track to the Father as I need to. No one has to tell us to confess as we know from the bible we should but also saying the Hail Mary brings me back to the Lord as many other prayers I could say in my on words.Jesus prayed the our Father in the garden and I see the BOX as some call it as my garden of prayer and a person who is not getting paid but the Lords blessings to listen to my pleadings for the Lord Jesus Mercy for my sins AMEN Try it you will like desert,return

 

[Mommyof02green]

Hi Mommyof02green

Understand ,at least you have mentioned venial/mortal different classification of the sin of which some you go to priest for confession, some you go to God for confession…at least now i understand it more clearly.

Your Welcome.

However the only different btw protestant and catholic are protestant does not have classification of sins, to us sin is a sin,

I realize that. However I don’t see it that way. Prayerfully read 1 John 5:13-18. After you have prayerfully read 1 John 5:13-18 read this from the CCC: re: sin usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art8.htm

thus need God forgiveness no matter what this is primary to protestant even if we have our confession to one another, a full repentance/prayer for reconciliation with God before partaking Holy Communion…

Amen, Amen, Amen

 

[jmcrae]

… however what i do not agree is if you are saying priest have the authority to releasing/free/clearing of our sin, becoz only God can discharge us from our sin…

Jesus disagrees with you. Read John 20:19-23. What did Jesus say to His first priests?

“As the Father has sent me, (Jesus has God’s power) so I send you.” They now have Jesus’ power.

Then He says to them very specifically, “If you forgive the sins of any …” Notice the “you” - He is giving them His power to forgive sins. If they forgive the sins of any (not if they ask Jesus to forgive the person, but if they forgive the person)

“If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them;” - the priest can forgive sins, through the Absolution. Jesus then goes on to say, “if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” In other words, the priest, if he has a good reason, can withhold the Absolution. In other words, Absolution isn’t automatic. It comes through the priest, and the priest chooses whether to exercise that power, or not.

Yes, ultimately it is God who forgives us, but God (Jesus) has set up the priesthood, and God (Jesus) gave the priests the power to do this. God’s forgiveness comes to us through His Church because as teh Body of Christ, the Church does what Jesus did when Jesus was here on the earth. When Jesus was here on the earth, people had to go to Him - to where His physical human body was - for the forgiveness of their sins. Now, they can go to His mystical Body, the Church.

 

[Coder]

…only God can discharge us from our sin…

That is true and only God can authorize an apostolic ministry of granting this forgiveness. God chose to form a Church and commission priests to forgive sins. It is right to accept this.

 

[Zooey]

I read about a convert trying to tie the concepts together: our venial sin is a Prot. “stumbling” and our mortal sin could be compared to “backsliding”.

It’s always good to talk with people in their language if you can.

Pax tecum, Juli

OK, this is very helpful to me!! I can understand much better here…Thank you!!

 

[mystified]

I have seen printed material on the rite of confession in a LCMS church, but have never heard of anyone using it. I don’t think they look on confession as a sacrament. A local, decidedly “low-church” Episcopal pastor and his Episcopal priest wife both speak of the Sacrament of Confession, but as a Catholic have never really pursued the topic.
It doesn’t apply directly to your stated reason for asking this question, but my question is: Are these non-Catholic/non-Orthodox clergymen bound by the Seal of the Confessional?

 

[inJESUS]

I , as a Catholic, asked about the confession as well. It was only after going to confession that i understood it’s importance.The enormous happiness felt after confession, and the relief of all burden is proof that God wants us to do it.

Does God baptize us or the priest in God’s name?
Does God marry us or the priest in God’s name?
Does God give us communion or the priest in God’s name?
Does God celebrate the Mass or the priest in God’s name?

but when it comes to confession, the priest has no place anymore?

 

[Pug]

Does God marry us or the priest in God’s name?

This sentence is confusing to me. A marriage of two baptized Protestants is a sacrament in my thinking, even though there was no priest there. What are you trying to say about the priest in the sacrament of marriage? Also, what are you trying to say with the “or” in the the other sentences? Is it an opposition?

 

[inJESUS]

This sentence is confusing to me. A marriage of two baptized Protestants is a sacrament in my thinking, even though there was no priest there.

can 2 Protestants get married without going to church ?

Also, what are you trying to say with the “or” in the the other sentences? Is it an opposition?

 

[mercygate]

I have seen printed material on the rite of confession in a LCMS church, but have never heard of anyone using it. I don’t think they look on confession as a sacrament. A local, decidedly “low-church” Episcopal pastor and his Episcopal priest wife both speak of the Sacrament of Confession, but as a Catholic have never really pursued the topic.
It doesn’t apply directly to your stated reason for asking this question, but my question is: Are these non-Catholic/non-Orthodox clergymen bound by the Seal of the Confessional?

As a former Episcopalian and seminary graduate, I assure you that whenever the subject of sacramental confession was introduced, the matter of the Seal was addressed with all of the emphasis it receives in Catholic teaching. The Seal is inviolable. Episcopal priests are taught, as are Catholic priests, that they may not even reveal whether a person has come to them for Confession.

I cannot speak for other Churches or denominations but it would come as a great surprise to me if I were told that Lutherans who practice confession do not also treat it with the same respect.

I believe even those denominations where people regularly confess to their pastor – even without admitting the possibility of a sacrament – expect that confidentiality will not be breached. I doubt that they are as intensively trained as are priests and ministers in traditions which see this as at least quasi-sacramental.

Some Protestants use “accountability partners.” Here is where I think the system can break down. You’re starting to entrust these sensitive things to people who are not reliably trained in the business of keeping their mouths shut and their hearts open. It IS a particular gift and one that requires a certain amount of grooming . . . .

 

[Syele]

I have had acountability parteners at various times in my life. These were generally friends that I trusted with my secrets anyhow, so they weren’t likely to go blabbing stuff about me to others. Also with an acountability partener, they are tell you things as well so it makes the Golden Rule a bit more real to them.

 

[Pug]

can 2 Protestants get married without going to church ?

am just saying that it is not God directly but through a priest becayse He gave the priest that mission. You can’t be baptized without a priest

I don’t know what rules a particular Protestant denomination might make for their marriage ceremonies, but I do know how the Catholic Church views the marriage. Even if it took place in, say a Methodist church, the preacher did not have Holy Orders, so the preacher is not a priest in Catholic reckoning. But, so long as the two people are baptized people (who are natural Protestants and not Catholics marrying outside the Church or something) and intend to marry, and were free to marry, the Catholic Church understands the two to have a sacramental marriage.

I’m having trouble finding the perfect quote for you on this, so I direct you to this passage of the CCC which talks about who is the minister of marriage (the couple):

1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses, but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.

In the Catholic Church, you can have a valid baptism without a priest or deacon there. A layperson can baptize someone if it is needed, and the person will be baptized. Just so long as water is used with the appropriate words and intention. Here is the CCC reference:

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

Also, I think I understand what you meant with the “or” now.

 

[inJESUS]

Pug yes i got what you mean now…my point was simple : there is ALWAYS someone for baptism, marriage, communion, ecc…

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Fair enough!

I have story for you:

2 brothers decided that they are each going to “steal” $20. Brother 1 “steals” the $20 from his mothers wallet. Brother 2 “steals” the $20 from some total strangers wallet.

Is what Brother 1 did worst then Brother 2?
Is what Brother 2 did worst then Brother 1?
Or is what they did the same?

The penalty for Eve eating the forbidden fruit and Cain’s murder met the very same consequence. Consequences of our actions vary depending on what we did. In Eve’s case, God’s creation became imperfect. Cain was cast out. I think you are confusing temporal and eternal consequences of sin. The eternal consequences for all sin is death and eternal seperation from God.

 

[Sixtus]

For Lutherans the greatest objection to the way Catholics practice Holy Absolution is that they tie it to satisfaction, requiring some work on the part of the penitent beyond what Christ has already done on his behalf.

So that if someone has stolen somthing, the priest may give as a penance that the owner gets their goods back. Or that an adulterer gives up committing adultery or that a man who has offended his neighbour has then to go and make ammends, apologising. That is painful it means giving up what we enjoy and what caused us to sin in the first place.

I agree with the Protestants on this one. Once I am forgiven, the atonement of Christ is sufficient. I should then be able to go and enjoy that which I stole from my neighbour.

The catholic teaching about making right what we have got wrong, is just not scriptural

 

[Mannyfit75]

From my observation from Protestants why they feel uncomfortable with the idea that confessing your sins because they can’t see themselve confessing to a man who himself sin. The excuse I think is just the misunderstanding of Bible regarding forgiving sins that many non-Catholic Christians see.

I don’t see how they can justify forgive of sins granted by Jesus to his apostles in John 20:20-23. After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ 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 them**; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’

Matthew 9:5-8“Your sins are forgiven”, or to say, “Stand up and walk”? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he then said to the paralytic—‘Stand up, take your bed and go to your home.’ 7And he stood up and went to his home. 8When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings.

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

2 Cor 2:10 Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ.

These passages conclude one thing, Jesus gave authority to men the power to forgive sins, in this case the Apostles, and their successors.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

So that if someone has stolen somthing, the priest may give as a penance that the owner gets their goods back. Or that an adulterer gives up committing adultery or that a man who has offended his neighbour has then to go and make ammends, apologising. That is painful it means giving up what we enjoy and what caused us to sin in the first place.

I agree with the Protestants on this one. Once I am forgiven, the atonement of Christ is sufficient. I should then be able to go and enjoy that which I stole from my neighbour.

The catholic teaching about making right what we have got wrong, is just not scriptural

Thats not how Christians (Protestant or other) believe. Christ commanded us if someone took our coat, to not stop them from taking the rest of our clothing as well and to not ask for it back. Paul said we could sin but by no means is the grace and mercy of Christ’s sacrifice a license to commit willful sinful acts.
Someone who is truly repentant would not continue to enjoy a stolen plasma tv, they would give it back. As Christians, we shouldn’t ask for it to be returned or demand restitution but extend forgiveness and mercy as Christ did. How many of us live up to that? I’ll be the first to say I’ve fallen short of that one.

 

[MariaG]

Thats not how Christians (Protestant or other) believe. Christ commanded us if someone took our coat, to not stop them from taking the rest of our clothing as well and to not ask for it back. Paul said we could sin but by no means is the grace and mercy of Christ’s sacrifice a license to commit willful sinful acts.
Someone who is truly repentant would not continue to enjoy a stolen plasma tv, they would give it back. As Christians, we shouldn’t ask for it to be returned or demand restitution but extend forgiveness and mercy as Christ did. How many of us live up to that? I’ll be the first to say I’ve fallen short of that one.

Yet Sixtus’ tongue in cheek reply was to the objection that we tie repentance to some kind of concrete “restitution”.

What is it that people object to, the fact that Catholics believe it is a requirement that can be placed on a person (especially effective for a person with imperfect contrition as this can help the person reach perfect contrition) and non-Catholics believe perfect contrition will just “come naturally”?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Yet Sixtus’ tongue in cheek reply was to the objection that we tie repentance to some kind of concrete “restitution”.

What is it that people object to, the fact that Catholics believe it is a requirement that can be placed on a person (especially effective for a person with imperfect contrition as this can help the person reach perfect contrition) and non-Catholics believe perfect contrition will just “come naturally”?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

Maria,

Yes I knew it was tongue in cheek. However, I know if someone were to read it (and have certain biases) that they would misunderstand what pesky black sheep protestants believe. What you said applies to protestant churches I know as well. Some evangelical churches preach confession of sins to brothers and pastors alike. Some take it further and do practice submission to pastoral authority as a part of restoration/contrition/restitution. I’m not saying they practice it perfectly or that they have a full understanding, just that I’ve seen it out there.

 

[MariaG]

Maria,

Yes I knew it was tongue in cheek. However, I know if someone were to read it (and have certain biases) that they would misunderstand what pesky black sheep protestants believe. What you said applies to protestant churches I know as well. Some evangelical churches preach confession of sins to brothers and pastors alike. Some take it further and do practice submission to pastoral authority as a part of restoration/contrition/restitution. I’m not saying they practice it perfectly or that they have a full understanding, just that I’ve seen it out there.

But it WAS written directly to a Protestant, specifically Lutheran, who said that

For Lutherans the greatest objection to the way Catholics practice Holy Absolution is that they tie it to satisfaction, requiring some work on the part of the penitent beyond what Christ has already done on his behalf.

I tried to find who originally said this as sixtus did not say who said it, but have not been able to find this particular quote.

So at least one protestant DOES in fact seem to believe what Sixtus wrote. Either that or they are unable to see they hypocrisy in stating disagreement with the Catholic belief that a truly repentant person WILL offer restitution for their sins and in fact require it.

As I said, I do not know if this poster takes issue with Catholics requiring restitution as a visible sign of their repentance and feels it should be a natural reaction to the outpouring of Grace from God. But the Catholic Church actually has “relaxed” this requirement. In the first century of Christian practice, this visible repentance frequently was required for long periods of time lasting for over a year to show that one was truly repentant.

Now certainly one could believe that the leaders of the first century Christians got it wrong and had already corrupted the word of God? But I would think that in fact, those who had been taught by the apostles actually would have a better idea than those who got thier ideas from Luther.

So while I do understand that many non-Catholic Christians do not disagree with the idea of restitution for ones sins, there is at least one here that does, which was who the words sixtus wrote were directed.

Unfortunately, there are many different opinions on this from different Protestant denominations, and even within the same denomination.

So for the sweeping generality without any disclaimer, I personally offer my apologies, even though I believe that since sixtus’ words were offered as a “tongue in cheek”, I do not think he meant that ALL non-Catholics believed this, but was just pointing out the obvious deficiencies with this one posters contention.

Of course, Sixtus is capable of offering his own explanation And I do completely understand about wishing to offer an explanation that Not all non-Catholics believe as the one poster, of whom Sixtus made his reply to, seems to believe.

God Bless,
Maria