What gives priest authority to forgive anyone of their sins?

[teeboy]

No, the priest actually does absolve. Since forgiveness of sins is reserved to God, the priest is only able to do so by virtue of the fact that Jesus gave that faculty to the Church, through the apostles. But, the priest still does something himself.

And even if a person is ‘perfectly contrite’, he still must go to confession to receive the grace of the sacrament of reconciliation.

Umm… no. No priest prays to Christ as a proxy for the penitent; rather, he absolves the penitent himself, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Cher,

Why get caught up in technicalities?

The priest can not give you anything which he hasn’t merited. Forgiveness of sins is available because of Jesus on the cross. Jesus merits forgiveness of sins. It’s like you trying to give your neighbors property to someone else. It just can’t happen because you never paid for your neighbors property and therefore never acquired just title to it to begin with. Jesus pays for sins on the cross.

Neigher does the priest transform bread and wine into Jesus. This too is an act of God.

I never said the priest doesn’t absolve you of your sins nor did I say the priest doesn’t do something.

Perfect contrition is from love of God. You may be right in that confession is required per the cathechism because the cathechism doesn’t mention perfect contrition in its dialogue about penance. But, I’d argue that if one is in love with God, that one is in a state of grace.

 

[Gorgias]

Why get caught up in technicalities?

Because, in the desire to make reconciliation seem more ‘palatable’ to those who are having problems with it, we don’t want to mischaracterize what the priesthood is.

The priest can not give you anything which he hasn’t merited.

Attained? Yes. ‘Merited’? No; no one ever merits the priesthood (except, of course, Jesus the High Priest).

Forgiveness of sins is available because of Jesus on the cross. Jesus merits forgiveness of sins.

To be more accurate: forgiveness of sins is available because Jesus is God. He forgave sins prior to His crucifixion, remember?

It’s like you trying to give your neighbors property to someone else. It just can’t happen because you never paid for your neighbors property and therefore never acquired just title to it to begin with.

To use your example, priests absolve sins because Jesus – the titleholder – gives them permission to allow others on the property.

Neigher does the priest transform bread and wine into Jesus. This too is an act of God.

The priest, acting in persona Christi, has the power to call down the Holy Spirit, and confects the Eucharist. Again: divine power given to priests.

Perfect contrition is from love of God. You may be right in that confession is required per the cathechism because the cathechism doesn’t mention perfect contrition in its dialogue about penance.

In fact, the catechism does mention perfect contrition, at paragraph #1452:

When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.

In other words, the catechism explicitly mentions that perfect contrition still requires sacramental reconciliation.

 

[teeboy]

Because, in the desire to make reconciliation seem more ‘palatable’ to those who are having problems with it, we don’t want to mischaracterize what the priesthood is.

Attained? Yes. ‘Merited’? No; no one ever merits the priesthood (except, of course, Jesus the High Priest).

To be more accurate: forgiveness of sins is available because Jesus is God. He forgave sins prior to His crucifixion, remember?

To use your example, priests absolve sins because Jesus – the titleholder – gives them permission to allow others on the property.

The priest, acting in persona Christi, has the power to call down the Holy Spirit, and confects the Eucharist. Again: divine power given to priests.

In fact, the catechism does mention perfect contrition, at paragraph #1452:

In other words, the catechism explicitly mentions that perfect contrition still requires sacramental reconciliation.

Overall your attempt to discredit me was futile and was slightly more than bickering.

 

[Usagi]

CRATUS, it is my understanding that a priest who offers the sacraments in a state of mortal sin is thereby committing further sins of sacrilege, just as in the case of a layperson who receives the Eucharist in such a state. If the sin is infamous and public, we may hope that the bishop will forbid the priest from exercising his ministry until the situation is corrected, just as a priest may outright refuse Communion to a notorious public sinner. But the rest of the time, in both cases, we have to rely on the individual to feel the responsibility to get right with God before approaching or offering the sacraments.

The important thing is that the sacraments themselves still “work” even when offered by a sinful priest. Their power comes from God, not from the personal holiness of the minister. That is a protection for the people receiving the sacraments, since they cannot see into their priest’s heart. No Catholic ever needs to worry that the secret sins of his pastor are invalidating the sacraments he receives.

Usagi

 

[vz71]

Honestly to me, it makes no sense if a priest who is more culpable than the average person chooses to live in a mortal sin, can still celebrate mass, bless people, anoint the sick, hear confessions and correct parishioners?
If I am not allowed to receive communion while living in a mortal sin, why is a priest even allowed to bless the bread & wine if he is living in a mortal sin?
How is he is still able to hear confessions if he is still choosing to live in mortal sin?
If an average Catholic was living in a state of mortal sin, I think they would be urged fervently to repent.
It is odd a priest can sometimes be better at helping others than himself. If the priest is indeed in persona Christ, I think he should at least try to live an exemplary life.

Thank God I do not have to worry about some unannounced sin on the priests part invalidating the Mass I attend.

 

[CRATUS]

Overall your attempt to discredit me was futile and was slightly more than bickering.

I regret that is thread came a bickering contest. Sorry.

 

[Gorgias]

Overall your attempt to discredit me was futile and was slightly more than bickering.

:doh2:

I’m sorry that you’re taking this so personally. Trust me, I have no reason to want to “discredit you” nor am I attempting to do so. Rather, I think you’re misrepresenting the priesthood, especially vis-a-vis the sacrament of reconciliation, and am simply trying to correct the inaccuracies in your post.

On the other hand, the fact that you have no reply to my corrections of your assertions – but rather, can only offer an ad hominem attack – appears to speak volumes.

Blessings,
G.

 

[seaton2005]

Regardless if some people have too high or too low of an opinion of a particular priest, this does not change the fact that they have the ordained authority to hear confession and confer absolution. I’m 99% certain it’s doctrine that even a priest in a state of mortal sin, upon performing the consecration, is holding the Body of Christ. Whether a priest is perfect or imperfect does not change the authority God has granted them through their ordination.

What! I had to read this twice. If that is doctrine, it’s not right. That is crazy.

 

[Elizium23]

What! I had to read this twice. If that is doctrine, it’s not right. That is crazy.

It’s absolutely true. I have already linked to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Donatists. Perhaps you would also find the Wikipedia article informative.

 

[JerryZ]

What! I had to read this twice. If that is doctrine, it’s not right. That is crazy.

The Sacraments, all of them, are shielded from the sinfulness or sainthood of the priest/deacon administering them.

The way the Church explain this is:

A term defined by the Council of Trent to describe how the sacraments confer the grace they signify. Trent condemned the following proposition: “That grace is not conferred ‘ex opere operato’ by the sacraments of the New Law” (Denzinger 1608). Literally the expression means “from the work performed,” stating that grace is always conferred by a sacrament, in virtue of the rite performed and not as a mere sign that grace has already been given, or that the sacrament stimulates the faith of the recipient and thus occasions the obtaining of grace, or that what determines the grace is the virtue of either the minister or recipient of a sacrament. Provided no obstacle (obex) is placed in the way, every sacrament properly administered confers the grace intended by the sacrament. In a true sense the sacraments are instrumental causes of grace.

The CHURCH has the guarantee from Jesus that her faithful will receive the intended graces, each Sacrament confers regardless how worthy the priest/deacon is, as long as he is validly ordained to his position.

…

 

[vz71]

What! I had to read this twice. If that is doctrine, it’s not right. That is crazy.

Of course it is correct.
I should not have to worry about the state of a priest to insure I have validly received a sacrament.

Should I conduct an investigation of a priest to insure my child’s baptism is ok?
What of confirmation?
Holy Orders?

Think of the chaos it creates if the sacrament validity depended upon the state of the priest’s soul.
A condition no one this side of eternity can know for certain.

No.
God’s church is more robust then that.
His sacraments are independent of the priests condition.

 

[Kurisu35712]

What! I had to read this twice. If that is doctrine, it’s not right. That is crazy.

Others have addressed your error, but honestly, how would the Church have any validity at all if all of its functions depended on the state of grace of those involved in performing those functions? The Church and her sacraments always function as intended because they are granted to us by God, through the priest, not by the priest.

Might I ask why you think that isn’t right? Frankly, I think it would be wrong if it were as you assert. If the power of the sacraments was dependent on the state of the priest’s soul, how could we logically consider any sacrament valid? Every one would be potentially invalid if that were the case. And that would be crazy. Christ’s sacrifice and presence in the Eucharist is dependent on His own grace and power, not on that of the priest. It is conferred through the priest, acting as Christ for us, through the consecration, by Christ. Regardless of the priest in question, the source of the sacraments’ power comes from God Himself. After all, the authority to confer the sacraments to us was given to the priest by God Himself during said priest’s ordination. That authority remains valid due to apostolic succession even if the priest is not “worthy” from our perspective.

 

[teeboy]

A good way to explain:

An office implies privileged powers unique to that office. The privileges are not from the people (as in the U.S. Constitution); they are from Jesus.

Any ability to absolve sins is not due to the priest. It is due to the office; the office created by Christ.

 

[ChibiViolet]

You should confess to a different priest. Their not supposed to yell at you.

 

[seaton2005]

Others have addressed your error, but honestly, how would the Church have any validity at all if all of its functions depended on the state of grace of those involved in performing those functions? The Church and her sacraments always function as intended because they are granted to us by God, through the priest, not by the priest.

Might I ask why you think that isn’t right? Frankly, I think it would be wrong if it were as you assert. If the power of the sacraments was dependent on the state of the priest’s soul, how could we logically consider any sacrament valid? Every one would be potentially invalid if that were the case. And that would be crazy. Christ’s sacrifice and presence in the Eucharist is dependent on His own grace and power, not on that of the priest. It is conferred through the priest, acting as Christ for us, through the consecration, by Christ. Regardless of the priest in question, the source of the sacraments’ power comes from God Himself. After all, the authority to confer the sacraments to us was given to the priest by God Himself during said priest’s ordination. That authority remains valid due to apostolic succession even if the priest is not “worthy” from our perspective.

Maybe like hypocritical for a start. A few weeks ago a high ranking catholic cleric (Bishops) close to my area was criminally indicted for not reporting a child molesting priest. It made me sick to my stomach. I thought to myself he is probably still hearing confessions. What’s wrong with these people. Don’t they get it that they are not above the law and that this is destroying our very church. Hypocritical.