who can forgive sin

[Prodigal_Son1]

No it is not because you do not agree, you are the same way with everyone who believes differently. It is not a private interpertation, it is by the Holy Spirit. If you belive what you believe all peace to you,you are not very loving towards anyone.

Well thanks for judging me through my posts. See, it’s a two way street here. I am going to explain the interpretation received in reading the scriptures in light of the living Church, the pillar and ground of truth. It’s a private interpretation unless every interpretation is the same and we can easily see that’s not the way it is by all the different denominations with different doctrines, all based on someone’s private interpretation. I’m sorry that you cannot see that.

There is nothing in scriptures that teach individuals to interpret scriptures for themselves, but you say they do. There is nothing that states the Bible is the ‘final authority’ on earth, but you say it does.

I do not agree and will not agree with the interpretation you’re ‘sharing’ with us, no offense but it just doesn’t make sense to me.

What do you expect me to do? Accept your telling us that our interpretation is incorrect on every aspect of Catholicism? Where do you get the authority to tell everyone else that your and only your interpretation is ‘infallible’? That’s what you’re doing, whether you realize it or not.

God is not a God of confusion. Giving every individual different interpretations and authority to bind and loose is chaos.

Where does scriptures tell us it’s acceptable for everyone to ‘believe differently’, or have different applications of the faith? It’s not there.

 

[Indyann]

Sorry it makes not sense to you. No matter how you put it God is the final judge. Its all up to him. If God see fit to forgive even if you don’t, that is God’s choice. If you forgive him and God don’t its his choice. No one can prevent God from doing anything, Oh I guess thats not true the apostles can.

But you said in your answer, that if a person does not forgive, neither will God. “Whose sin you have forgiven, they are forgiven. Whose sin you have retained, they are retained.”

said by you

1. not to forgive them. If you forgive them and the confess the sin to God, God will forgive them of that sin, but if you don’t forgive them then when they confess the sin to God it will not be forgiven.

 

[tweetymom]

Well thanks for judging me through my posts. See, it’s a two way street here. I am going to explain the interpretation received in reading the scriptures in light of the living Church, the pillar and ground of truth. It’s a private interpretation unless every interpretation is the same and we can easily see that’s not the way it is by all the different denominations with different doctrines, all based on someone’s private interpretation. I’m sorry that you cannot see that.

There is nothing in scriptures that teach individuals to interpret scriptures for themselves, but you say they do. There is nothing that states the Bible is the ‘final authority’ on earth, but you say it does.

I do not agree and will not agree with the interpretation you’re ‘sharing’ with us, no offense but it just doesn’t make sense to me.

Sorry but the Holy Spirit is our teacher.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sorry but the Holy Spirit is our teacher.

Sorry, but you’re wrong. See, that type discussion doesn’t prove anything.

Do you really think the Holy Spirit teaches people differently? How is that still the truth? There is only one truth.

Show me where it was acceptable for people to claim they were taught differently by the Holy Spirit in scriptures. It’s not there.

 

[Indyann]

Sorry but the Holy Spirit is our teacher.

Even the eunich (sp) needed a teacher to interpret the Scriptures.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Even the eunich (sp) needed a teacher to interpret the Scriptures.

You’re right Indyann. There are lots of examples and specific scriptures teaching against private interpretation. Look at the two on the road to Emmaus. They knew Christ and they knew scriptures, but they didn’t understand them until Christ opened their heart to the scriptures and it was only when He broke the bread that they recognized Him, after He had resurrected.

It goes further back than that. Read Nehemiah 8, the priests had to explain the scriptures to the people and cause them to understand.

How many times did Christ tell people they didn’t understand the scriptures, or that they erred reading scriptures?

He established a Church and never wrote anything down, nor did He order anything scribed. The Church He established wrote the scriptures and preserved them for us to have one in our possession today.

 

[hosemonkey]

No it is not because you do not agree, you are the same way with everyone who believes differently. It is not a private interpertation, it is by the Holy Spirit. If you belive what you believe all peace to you,you are not very loving towards anyone.

You claim that your private interpretation is “by the Holy Spirit.” So claim all the various sects and denominations and varieties of protestants and free-lancers and gurus out there with their own brand of religion. All “guided” by the Holy Spirit. How do you explain the confusion? Is the Holy Spirit very confused? Or are those who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit just looking to justify their own confusion. Well, I do not think that the Holy Spirit is confused. Christ promised His Church an Advocate, a Guide who would lead His Church in all righteousness, until the end of days. His Church is still being guided by the Holy Spirit and teaches all truth. The rest of you are still trying to figure it out. To simply choose not to believe a Truth will not make it go away. RevKevin, you choose not to believe in Confession and absolution by a priest. Fine, remain in doubt as to your forgiveness of your sins. You really can’t be sure, can you? It is not unloving to admonish the sinner, or one who is in error.

 

[TriuneUnity]

You claim that your private interpretation is “by the Holy Spirit.” So claim all the various sects and denominations and varieties of protestants and free-lancers and gurus out there with their own brand of religion. All “guided” by the Holy Spirit.

In fairness, however, there are also a bunch of different groups out there that claim to be guided infallibly by a teaching authority/church. Not the least of which being the few hundred million Orthodox Christians.

So I am not exactly sure it solves the subjectivity problem. It only moves it back one step. If the Scriptures are supposedly interpreted correctly by infallible teaching authority X, then one must still determine whether teaching authority X is true versus teaching authority Y, so wouldn’t we need infallible source Z to tell us whether X or Y is actually infallible?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You claim that your private interpretation is “by the Holy Spirit.” So claim all the various sects and denominations and varieties of protestants and free-lancers and gurus out there with their own brand of religion. All “guided” by the Holy Spirit. How do you explain the confusion? Is the Holy Spirit very confused? Or are those who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit just looking to justify their own confusion. Well, I do not think that the Holy Spirit is confused. Christ promised His Church an Advocate, a Guide who would lead His Church in all righteousness, until the end of days. His Church is still being guided by the Holy Spirit and teaches all truth. The rest of you are still trying to figure it out. To simply choose not to believe a Truth will not make it go away. RevKevin, you choose not to believe in Confession and absolution by a priest. Fine, remain in doubt as to your forgiveness of your sins. You really can’t be sure, can you? It is not unloving to admonish the sinner, or one who is in error.

Thanks hosemonkey. Been a long time, how have you been?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In fairness, however, there are also a bunch of different groups out there that claim to be guided infallibly by a teaching authority/church. Not the least of which being the few hundred million Orthodox Christians.

So I am not exactly sure it solves the subjectivity problem. It only moves it back one step. If the Scriptures are supposedly interpreted correctly by infallible teaching authority X, then one must still determine whether teaching authority X is true versus teaching authority Y, so wouldn’t we need infallible source Z to tell us whether X or Y is actually infallible?

Why did Christ build a Church and not write anything down?

Christ did not leave us without a ‘shepherd’ to guide us, and that was His Church. It’s served all generations since He established it.

The multiple interpretations does not mean it’s acceptable for there to be many interpretations and multiple applications of the one faith. Multiple interpretations and multiple Churches are not supported by the very scriptures we are discussing.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Why did Christ build a Church and not write anything down?

Christ did not leave us without a ‘shepherd’ to guide us, and that was His Church. It’s served all generations since He established it.

The multiple interpretations does not mean it’s acceptable for there to be many interpretations and multiple applications of the one faith. Multiple interpretations and multiple Churches are not supported by the very scriptures we are discussing.

None of what you posted here is in dispute.

My question is aimed at the epistemology of which Church is infallible. An infallible teaching authority solves the problem of multiple interpretations. If a Church interprets the Scriptures infallibly, then interpretation isn’t an issue. However, if Rome and Constantinople both claim infallibility in interpreting the Scriptures, which infallible source tells you whether Rome or Constantinople is the the actual infallible Church?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

None of what you posted here is in dispute.

My question is aimed at the epistemology of which Church is infallible. An infallible teaching authority solves the problem of multiple interpretations. If a Church interprets the Scriptures infallibly, then interpretation isn’t an issue. However, if Rome and Constantinople both claim infallibility in interpreting the Scriptures, which infallible source tells you whether Rome or Constantinople is the the actual infallible Church?

There was a ‘Catholic Church’, long before any other Churches existed. The word ‘Catholic’ is derived from Greek used in scriptures. St. Ignatius used the term in 110 AD. Now, both the Orthodox and Catholic Church have Apostolic authority, through Apostolic succession.

While they may have ‘differences’, it seems to me to be a matter of semantics and their beliefs are ‘Catholic’ either way you shake it.

You can’t use the two in an agrument against one and not invalidate all the other Churches, in my honest opinion. In a way it seems to make such an argument is admitting that one or the other is the true Church and it makes one wonder why you don’t belong to one of them?

It’s also like saying, oh they don’t agree so now we can have as many interpretations as we feel like. God is not a God of confusion.

 

[TriuneUnity]

While they may have ‘differences’, it seems to me to be a matter of semantics and their beliefs are ‘Catholic’ either way you shake it.

You cannot reduce it to a matter of semantics. Ask an Orthodox Christian if it is a matter of semantics and I am not sure the response will be pleasant. The Roman Catholic church claims that it and it alone is the true church over and against Orthodoxy. It claims to have a bishop who maintains the right of universal jurisdiction over other bishops and is infallible ex cathedra. The Orthodox deny this dogma.

The Catholic church also believes that the Virgin Mary was conceived and born without sin. Eastern Orthodoxy believes that the Virgin Mary was capable of sinning, but she successfully resisted sin her whole life. I agree that this could be seen as semantics, but matter of fact, Rome claims that the immaculate conception is infallibly revealed dogma and Orthodoxy does not.

I don’t want to list the differences, but the above are demonstrative. Both churches claim their teaching authorities are infallible and both hold mutually exclusive dogmas. So my question still stands; which infallible source tells us emphatically which of the two is infallible on any given dispute?

You can’t use the two in an agrument against one and not invalidate all the other Churches, in my honest opinion. In a way it seems to make such an argument is admitting that one or the other is the true Church and it makes one wonder why you don’t belong to one of them?

I am using those two, not as an argument, but as an example of two churches with conflicting beliefs who both claim apostolic succession and an infallible teaching charism. It could apply to any church which claims to have such.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You cannot reduce it to a matter of semantics. Ask an Orthodox Christian if it is a matter of semantics and I am not sure the response will be pleasant. The Roman Catholic church claims that it and it alone is the true church over and against Orthodoxy. It claims to have a bishop who maintains the right of universal jurisdiction over other bishops and is infallible ex cathedra. The Orthodox deny this dogma.

The Catholic church also believes that the Virgin Mary was conceived and born without sin. Eastern Orthodoxy believes that the Virgin Mary was capable of sinning, but she successfully resisted sin her whole life. I agree that this could be seen as semantics, but matter of fact, Rome claims that the immaculate conception is infallibly revealed dogma and Orthodoxy does not.

I don’t want to list the differences, but the above are demonstrative. Both churches claim their teaching authorities are infallible and both hold mutually exclusive dogmas. So my question still stands; which infallible source tells us emphatically which of the two is infallible on any given dispute?

I am using those two, not as an argument, but as an example of two churches with conflicting beliefs who both claim apostolic succession and an infallible teaching charism. It could apply to any church which claims to have such.

To think that the Church is not the authoritative body Christ established it to be makes scriptures wrong. How can we believe that God is not a God of confusion if we accept ‘private interpretation’? It’s that simple. Then on top of it all, scriptures themselves do not teach ‘private interpretation’ or that scriptures are the final authority. It seems to pitch the two oldest Churches against each other is for justification reasons, in my honest opinion and I don’t mean any offense in making that statement.

Christ established a Church and He didn’t write or ordered anything scribed. Men of that Church wrote the scriptures, defined the canon and preserved the scriptures through the ages. In that order.

If one wanted to read anything into Christ not writing everything down, it would make more sense to think it was because of what we see today with private interpretations.

 

[TriuneUnity]

To think that the Church is not the authoritative body Christ established it to be makes scriptures wrong. How can we believe that God is not a God of confusion if we accept ‘private interpretation’? It’s that simple. Then on top of it all, scriptures themselves do not teach ‘private interpretation’ or that scriptures are the final authority. It seems to pitch the two oldest Churches against each other is for justification reasons, in my honest opinion and I don’t mean any offense in making that statement.

None taken. It still doesn’t answer the question, though. For the sake of discussion, if I am a non-believer who is looking at Rome or Orthodoxy, or a Protestant looking at Rome or Orthodoxy, both claim an infallible teaching authority. Yet both disagree on infallible dogma. Both can conceivably point to various Scriptures as well as early church fathers to bolster their argument. Which infallible source will tell me which one is infallible?

I am not looking at issues of private interpretation or how the Scriptures were preserved in this question. I am looking at two Churches that both teach that Scripture and Tradition teaches that they are the true church with an infallible teaching authority.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

None taken. It still doesn’t answer the question, though. For the sake of discussion, if I am a non-believer who is looking at Rome or Orthodoxy, or a Protestant looking at Rome or Orthodoxy, both claim an infallible teaching authority. Yet both disagree on infallible dogma. Both can conceivably point to various Scriptures as well as early church fathers to bolster their argument. Which infallible source will tell me which one is infallible?

I am not looking at issues of private interpretation or how the Scriptures were preserved in this question. I am looking at two Churches that both teach that Scripture and Tradition teaches that they are the true church with an infallible teaching authority.

Again, I call it semantics. Catholics believe immaculately conceived, Orthodox believe she remained sinless. Both believe in the real presence, but Orthodox reject the term ‘transubstanation’. When you go off into the Protestant Churches, you see the similarities become fewer and fewer.

The differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Church seem to rest in the ‘oral tradition’ and not so much in scriptures. The differences were not viewed as an example of incorrectness by many Protestants, but rejected for their own ‘new’ private interpretation.

If it were only two separate Churches, it would be too many. You can imagine how I view thousands of denominations.

 

[KathleenGee]

TriuneUnity,

Somebody correct me, but I believe the division between the ‘two lungs’ also had to do with some bad experiences during the Crusades of which they have never forgiven us…

How would we feel if St. Peter’s was not staked down by the 4 pillars of Islam??? There is a movement to finally achieve this since the beginning of that political religion.

Well, it happened to St. Sophia’s, the center of orthodoxy. I have read the differences, such as the Filoque that does not deny the Holy Trinity, the issue of original sin defined mainly by St. Thomas Aquinas, liturgy, especially now after Vatican II with the Latin abuses…I think it has to do more than anything with ethnicity and wars…my opinion…and the theological issues are not that great … for me…correct me, if I am wrong, Prodigal Son.

The Patriarch of Russia is seeing now the great fractures among us and is open now to dialoguing more with Pope Benedict.

 

[KathleenGee]

Tweetymom…

About having the Holy Spirit being the only teacher, well then Christ did not need to leave the Apostles with us.

Have you ever been associated with different prayer groups and movements…personality issues arise, one person thinks he has more of the Lord than the other, and they begin to get different movements of direction, and then there is a split…I saw that in a Charismatic Catholic community.

So I wonder about people’s actual life experience of dealing with all kinds of people and cultures in every day life, trying to fellowship outside of Mass…and it is very diverse.

The sacrament of the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Grave sin breaks that relationship. We need a priest to absolve us a sin…to approach the Sacrament again.

If Protestants are not approaching the sacred in physical form that can only be acquired through a consecrated priest, then you don’t have the stipulation on you to go to confession.

Confession is to absolve one to return to the Eucharist. It is a different reality and thus is the difference, the Sacraments and God given authority by Christ to the Apostles and to their successors to administrate the Church.

Catholicism does not arbitration. We have the concrete…and Scripture and the Church through Tradition is deeply intertwined through the Holy Spirit…no guessing games.

 

[tweetymom]

Tweetymom…

About having the Holy Spirit being the only teacher, well then Christ did not need to leave the Apostles with us.

Have you ever been associated with different prayer groups and movements…personality issues arise, one person thinks he has more of the Lord than the other, and they begin to get different movements of direction, and then there is a split…I saw that in a Charismatic Catholic community.

So I wonder about people’s actual life experience of dealing with all kinds of people and cultures in every day life, trying to fellowship outside of Mass…and it is very diverse.

The sacrament of the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Grave sin breaks that relationship. We need a priest to absolve us a sin…to approach the Sacrament again.

If Protestants are not approaching the sacred in physical form that can only be acquired through a consecrated priest, then you don’t have the stipulation on you to go to confession.

Confession is to absolve one to return to the Eucharist. It is a different reality and thus is the difference, the Sacraments and God given authority by Christ to the Apostles and to their successors to administrate the Church.

Catholicism does not arbitration. We have the concrete…and Scripture and the Church through Tradition is deeply intertwined through the Holy Spirit…no guessing games.

I respect you beliefs and your Church as I do all believers in Christ. Just do not agree with you or in all things in the Catholic Church.

I have been involved in many many ministries in my years of life .Catholic, Protestant and there will always be a problem arise.

I do not need a Priest to absolve my sins God is very capable.I do not critise you for needing a Priest. That is great if you believe it and God Bless you for it.

I have Jesus and the Holy Spirit in my life who are my soul mates. God bless you

 

[guanophore]

Yes I would happen to agree with you about God works in faith in the hearts of people through the means of Grace and only through Grace. Isn’t telling God directly and knowing he has forgiven you absolution enough.

Yes, but there are a vast majority of people that don’t have this “knowing”. God has provided for our doubts, in that men have been authorized to say to the penitent “your sins are forgiven, rise and walk”.

Mat 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the sick of the palsy), Arise, and take up thy bed, and go up unto thy house.
Mat 9:7 And he arose, and departed to his house.
Mat 9:8 But when the multitudes saw it, they were afraid, and glorified **God, who had given such authority unto men. **

What you are suggesting is that the HS made a mistake by allowing the word “men” here to be plural. However, the Apostles and their disciples clearly understood that they were the “men” who were given this authority.

I don’t see why you would need someone to tell you that or give Holy Absolution when grace is a gift free gift from God.

I think if you are honest with yourself Rev, you will realize that there are a great many people who do not feel “worthy” of the free gifts of God.

If you confess your sins to him and mean it, you and God are the only one's who would know if you really mean it, then your sins are forgiven.

There are many secrets of our hearts that we don’t even know ourselves, and which will not be revealed to us until judgement. That is why we can never be able to judge ourselves, or acquit ourselves.

1Co 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
1Co 4:4 For I know nothing against myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

we are not justified before God just because we think we are. We are not in a position to know the secrets of our own hearts. Only He can see the hidden.

Why do you need confirmation from someone about that.

Because we are human, and that is how God created us.

I talk to him, tell him my sins and ask for his forgiveness. I don’t need someone to tell me my sins are forgiven when they really don’t know if they are.

The sins are forgiven by the authority vested in the priest. God has given this authority TO MEN on earth to forgive sins. In his name, they are remitted. It amazes me that you don’t seem to have any experience with a scrupulous person, or one who doubts that he has been, or can be, forgiven. this is quite a common situation for people who have been convicted of their sins.