When did Confession to a priest start?

[Zenkai]

I know that John 20:22-23 says: “Then he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’”

I was wondering if any of the early Church fathers mentioned Confession to a priest.

-Thanks

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

In early times confession was for the whole congregation, while the priest said the words of absolution. The Didache from around 90 AD says:

“In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life…On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure."

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Even the Jews before Christ confessed their sins to a priest.

 

[Todd_Easton]

In his Homily on Leviticus 2:4, written about A.D. 249, Origen mentions “declaring his sin to a priest.”

 

[KP3243]

When Jesus entered the upper room after right after his resurrection.

 

[R_C]

Yet Christ brought the fullness of the revelation when He gave the apostles the power to forgive sins. The law of Moses had no such thing, and even when the Lord himself forgave people’s sins they would accuse Him of blasphemy, saying that only God could forgive sins. What is interesting is that, indeed, their argument was not wrong: for Christ is God, and because in the Reconciliation the priest acts in persona Christi

 

[Church_Militant]

I have a couple of articles on my blog that you might find helpful.
Catholic Confession
Scriptures About Penance

 

[panevino]

Even the Jews before Christ confessed their sins to a priest.

Lev5:5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these [things], that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that [thing]:
6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.

 

[jpennstar]

Would it not be granted, though, that the OT example of confessing to a priest doesn’t exactly follow anymore as we have Jesus Christ as our mediator…

Personally I think both confession to the Church and God are necessary…

 

[TimothyH]

Confession to a priest goes back to the time of Moses and the covenant at Mt. Sinai.

When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, and he shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin. (Leviticus 5:5-6)

The sinner would tell his sins to the priest, who would lay his hands on the animal and state the sins, thereby transferring the sin to the animal. The animal would then die in place of the person who had violated the covenant.

There is a long history of oral confession of sins in the Old Testament. Oral confession of sin is one of the first things Mark mentions in his Gospel.

John [the] Baptist appeared in the desert proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. People of the whole Judean countryside and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins. (Mark 1:4-5)

-Tim-

 

[panevino]

Would it not be granted, though, that the OT example of confessing to a priest doesn’t exactly follow anymore as we have Jesus Christ as our mediator…

Personally I think both confession to the Church and God are necessary…

We no longer need to bring a lamb. Jesus , High priest and victm supersedes this.
We bring only ourselves in repentance humbly before God, formally in the ministry shown in John20:21-23, 2cor2:10, 1john1:9, James 5:16. Rom15:16(ezek44:11), 2cor5:18
The mediator is Jesus, as sin is only forgiven through Him.
As with the Eucharist and baptism and see james 5:16, and laying of hands, there is a tangible / real encounter.

 

[LilyM]

The Epistle of James discusses confession. True, he says ‘confess your sins to one another’, but clearly confession to a priest has always been considered an essential part of obtaining forgiveness for serious sins, since Jesus did not give all, but only the Apostles, the power to absolve and retain.

And John in one of his epistles discusses the difference between sin which is ‘not unto death’ (venial), about which ordinary laypeople can and should pray and sin which IS ‘unto death’ (mortal) about which they should not - presumably meaning not praying for absolution, which is not reserved to the layperson for mortal sins, but only to the priests.

 

[jpennstar]

I don’t think one scripture can supercede another, but only add and enlighten others; they compliment each other.

So scripture says to confess our sins one to another, so we may pray for one another. It also says to confess our sins directly to God. It also talks about sins which are of degrees. It also speaks of the Apostles forgiving sins - as Christ had done. But also God forgives sins.

It then seems the forgiveness of sins is broader than one way…

I find confession to a priest profitable because they give me recommendations for me to help me in my walk.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I am puzzled though why scripture doesn’t speak specifically of the bishops forgiving sins.

In the Church their are many ways in which we confess our sins. In mass we make a public confession, praying for one another that we may be strengthend by the grace of God. Venial sin when confessed privately or publicly with a sincere sorrow for your sins and a firm resolution to amend your life is sufficent to remit venial sin (usually the Lords Prayer is said). For Mortal sin however there is more that needs to be done since we have lost sanctifying grace. We have left the fathers house and have squandered the riches we were given (sanctifying grace) and therefore must humbly approach Christ in the confessional in order to ask for his forgiveness and the inheritance He wants us to have. He clothes us in new garments and riches (sanctifying grace) and tells others to rejoice for we were lost but now we are found; we were dead (living in a state of mortal sin) but now we are alive again (living a life in sanctifying grace).

Paul in his epistles speaks about his office and says he has been given this ministry of reconciliation; telling fellow Christians that when he forgives sins he doesnt do so of his own power but rather he forgives sins in the person of Christ. Paul was an Apostle which means he was a Bishop in Christ’s Church…

 

[jpennstar]

Okay it makes sense now why we do the public confession in church now.

But what of then mortal sins being required to be confessed to priests? 1 Jn 1:8 doesn’t make this distinction.

Is there something in scripture that does?

 

[LilyM]

Okay it makes sense now why we do the public confession in church now.

But what of then mortal sins being required to be confessed to priests? 1 Jn 1:8 doesn’t make this distinction.

Is there something in scripture that does?

I can’t remember the exact cite, but one of John’s epistles does indeed distinguish between sin that is venial (not ‘unto death’) and mortal (‘sin unto death’). So that’s already there.

I think it’s as simple as ‘whose sins you forgive they are forgiven’. Not ‘whose sins the person prays to me about’.

And we actually have OT precedent. After David adultered with Bathsheba etc etc and was called out on it by Nathan the prophet, he repented, fasted and prayed, and wrote the beautiful Psalm 51. But he didn’t consider himself forgiven merely for having done so.

He confessed to Nathan (kinda, after all Nathan already knew all the gory details) and kept praying and fasting until Nathan came and pronounced God’s forgiveness - ‘for your part, God has forgiven your sins’. And the penance - ‘but the child (born of David’s adultery) will die’.

 

[jpennstar]

How should I understand 1 Jhn 1:8 ?

 

[LilyM]

How should I understand 1 Jhn 1:8 ?

It’s not rocket science. We are to confess our sins. To whom? God? Of course. But how?

Our Lord made clear that of we want to be certain of forgiveness (or indeed corrected when our attitude is not one conducive to absolution, and have our sins retained) then we are to approach those whom He has deputized to do the job - the Apostles (and their successors, who they deputized in their turn, our priests).

‘What you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven’. ‘He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me.’ What can this mean except that in matters such as to confession we are to obey the dictates of our spiritual fathers - again, the Apostles and their successors.

I really am struggling to understand why this is such an issue for you. Surely you are not one of those who need to see something in black and white in scripture before you believe it? Jesus came to found a church and left it with spirit-guided leaders to teach us. We need to trust them.

He neither wrote nor commanded to be written a single word of scripture. The church pre existed the writing of the New Testament by decades. And it pre existed a formally canonized scripture (as opposed to a loose collection of writings, some found to be inspired upon investigation and some not) by three hundred odd years.

The New Testament was written by Catholics for Catholics. As with any book, if you want to know what it means, ask the writer (ie the Church!)

 

[jpennstar]

You make a clear distinction then as “how” are we to have our sins forgiven; recalling John 20:23.

Acts 10:43 To him [Jesus] all the prophets bear witness, that everyone who believes in him will receive forgiveness of sins through his name.

This same notion is echoed in John 6 many many times. The Jews asked how they would receive this eternal bread, namely what “work”. And Jesus was very clear. To believe in him.

I’m not referencing Tradition or early church Fathers here. Which may indeed be the answer.

The point is, I don’t see scripture being sufficient enough for a sound argument.

If this is true then I am fine with this answer.

 

[TimothyH]

How should I understand 1 Jhn 1:8 ?

We always have to remember that the first Christians, the Apostles and disciples, were Jews. The Bible will always be misunderstood and misinterpreted if we fail to read the scriptures as the Jews who wrote them intended.

The verse in full…

***If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray *to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly. (1 John 5:16-17)

This is tied up in the idea of covenants and what it means to be a sinner under Jewish law.

When God made the covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai, certain sins were specified which if committed brought the sinner under the immedate thread of death. These were sins which broke the covenant with God in a fundamental way, and as such, the only way to satisfy the demands of the covenant was a death. There were also sins of omission, which did not break the covenant, and these did not require death, but could be repaired through repentance and some action by the person who comitted the sin. This is the context with which we need to read John’s words about being returned to life through prayer for sins which are not deadly, and how the prayer of the sinner is not effective for sins which are deadly.

Jesus himself speaks of deadly and non-deadly sin.

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, “You fool!” shall be liable to the Hell of fire. (Matthew 5:22, NRSV-CE)

The first type of sin referenced by Jesus opens one up to judgment, but not to the immediate threat of death. This “Judgment” is Jesus’ allusion to the judges who sit at the gate of the city - these were basically judges for small claims court and minor criminal offenses which did not carry the death sentance. The Sanhedrin was the supreme Jewish council and where capital crimes were tried. The “Council” had the authority to sentance criminals to death. Being “Liable to the council” meant that one’s sin had exposed him to the possiblity of death. Circumstanced may mitigate the crime and the council might however, have mercy. The third type of sin however, were sins which “Cry out to God” and break the covenant in a fundamental and deliberate way.

Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out in the field.” When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. Then the LORD asked Cain, Where is your brother Abel? He answered, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” God then said: What have you done? Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground! (Genesis 4:8-10)

This third type of sin which Jesus speaks of, sins which are clear and deliberate transgressions of the covenant and which “Cry out to God”, brought the immediate punishment of death. There was no mercy.

Jesus and his best friend John were speaking about the same thing - sin under the covenant which God had made with Israel through Moses, and they are both differentiating the types of sin which broke the covenant and demand death from sin which does not break the covenant and does not demand death. Both John and Jesus are using sin as it was understood by Jews who lived under the Old Covenant as a teaching tool to speak about the relative gravity of sin, and to teach about culpability - how much blame one bears - and that minor “Non-deadly” sins are repairable through the action of the sinner himself.

The “Jewishness” of the scriptures has to be understood, to fully appreciate what the authors were talking about.

Incidentally, following the logic of Jesus and John with regard to deadly and non-deadly sin in the context of the covenant, and taking into account their clear statments about the requirement of perfection as a prerequisite to enter heave, leads one to the conclusion that a heaven and hell only theology is an absurdity. Taken as a whole, the reqirement that one be perfect to enter heaven but the existence of non-deadly sin (sin which does not break the covenant) leads one to a catch-22 which is only satisfied by a theology which includes purgatory.

-Tim-