Why must Catholics confess their sins to a priest?

[glendab]

Yippie! Great job Cathoholic!

We don’t know for sure all the reasons WHY Jesus has us Confess our sins to Priests but perhaps part of the reason is humanity is in need of the humility.

Wretched Man. You said in post 100

Will this really matter to you?

Let’s look at St. Paul matter-of-factly employ this concept of acting in the person of Christ (persona Christi) in the context of forgiving sins, without any felt need to defend it.

Jesus actually personally forgives sins through his appointed.

2nd CORINTHIANS 2:5-11 5 But if any one has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure–not to put it too severely-- to you all. 6 For such a one this punishment by the majority is enough; 7 so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. 9 For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. 10 Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence (Greek word “prospon”) of Christ, 11 to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

2nd CORINTHIANS 2:10 (DRV Catholic Bible translation) And to whom you have forgiven any thing, I also: for, what I forgave, if I have forgiven any thing, it was for your sakes in the person of Christ, 11 that we may not be circumvented by Satan: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

Do you think St. Paul has the power to forgive something/anything in the very prospon or “person” of Christ (in persona Christi)? If so what do you think he has been given this power to forgive (if not sins) that is so important, if not done, Satan can circumvent them (v. 11)?

In Matthew 28:18, Jesus said, “All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

How much “authority” is that?

a. A little
b. Quite a bit
c. ALL authority in Heaven and on earth

Then Jesus sent out his Apostles with the gift of among other things, His authority! . . . . “As the Father has sent me, so now I send you” (in John 20:21). And this is directly in association with forgiving sins.

Did Jesus come with authority? Did Jesus send out His Apostles “as the Father sent Me, so now I send you?”

How much “authority” would you say that is that the Apostles have received?

a. A little
b. Quite a bit
c. ALL authority in Heaven and on earth

You and I know only God can forgive sins right?

But the real question is, HOW does God forgive them?

You would say we are to confess our sins directly to Jesus and ONLY to Jesus.

I have no issue with Confessing directly to Jesus (Catholics call that an “examination of conscience”). But is there any other way we are instructed to Confess our sins too?

Yes. It was already discussed earlier on this thread.

I asked in post 20:

Considering James 5:16 . . . .

JAMES 5:16 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

. . . . . WHO do you think James is talking about and . . . .

. . . . WHO are the “one another” YOU confess your sins to?

a. I don’t confess my sins to anyone (certainly not “one another”)
b. I confess my sins to myself (definitely not “one another”)
c. I confess my sins directly to God and ONLY to God (and not “one another”)
d. I confess my sins to another person (just like James 5:16 tells me to) but beforehand I confess them to God when I examine my conscience.

If you answer a, b, or c, then you are not obeying James 5:16. If you answered “d”, we can then have the discussion about WHO the “one another” is, that James is referring to.

So WHO is the “one another” that YOU Confess your sins to Wretched Man?

I see 1st John 1:9 you say in post 98:

Considering James explicitly tells us to Confess our sins to “one another” in the context of getting our sins forgiven, . . . .

. . . . WHY did you think it is OK to ADD “confess our sins (to Jesus)” to Sacred Scripture in 1st JOHN 1:9?

I am not criticizing this (although I may, if you don’t have a good reason), I just want to know why you added to Sacred Scripture here, especially when the Holy Spirit explicitly tells us we are to “confess our sins to one another” elsewhere?

Well put together and nicely presented but I don’t think Wretched Man will respond.

Keep up the good works.

Glenda

 

[ahs]

Hello again, Wretched Man! There’s no need to repeat what others have already provided, so I’ll just quickly cover 2 comments from you:

No where else in scripture is this narrow view taught…scripture must interpret scripture…

Don’t you think you are being hypocritical here? You are saying that , because I only offered 1 EXPLICIT quote from CHRIST HIMSELF, that therefore this teaching isn’t true (even though we know Christ told both Peter AND the rest of the Apostles in 2 additional verses of Scripture that “whatever” they bind/loose on earth is bound/loosed in Heaven…the word “whatever” meaning “whatever”.)

Yet at the same time, you are telling me to believe something that isn’t found even ONCE, not even implicitly, in Scripture. You said, “scripture must interpret scripture…”. Where is THAT in the Bible??? The answer, of course, is “nowhere”. A bit hypocritical, don’t you think?

You don’t understand the history of the priesthood and or who the priesthood is today…

I believe that I do understand it. But the fact of the matter is, whether or not I understand the Priesthood properly or not does not diminish the clear teaching of Scripture that Christ told His Apostles that sins would be forgiven, or retained, if THEY forgave or retained them. Scripture could not be more clear.

 

[Protector]

bmonk;11598681]The usual citations are from Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, where first Peter and then all the apostles are given the power to bind and to loose, both on Earth and in Heaven. Also there is John 20:21-23 where Jesus, after the resurrection, sends the disciples (making them Apostles), gives them the Holy Spirit, and gives them the power to forgive sins.
…Now, is this power only of use to that first generation? Hardly. We all need to practice forgiveness–it’s a commitment we make every time we pray the Lord’s Prayer. So why would the official Church’s leadership be denied the continuation of the power Jesus himself gave them?

ahs;11605454: “Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” (22) " And when he had said this, **he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” ** John 20:21-22.

So then, in the following verses we see the disciples laying hands on new believers in order that they might receive the Holy Spirit

“Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost” Acts 8:17:

And in Acts 19:5-6 we read,

(5) “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.”

Right away we see a difference between John 20:22 and the other verses quoted which deal with the same subject, the receiving of the Holy Spirit.

In John 20:22 we read,

Jesus, “… breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit”,

whereas in the other verses,

the Apostles “…laid … their hands on them” so that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

Are we perhaps dealing with a different Holy Spirit in John 20:22 . No, not a different Holy Spirit, but greater powers of the same Holy Spirit.

In John, Jesus used insufflation (the Breath of God) to give the Holy Spirit, but the Apostles use the laying on of hands in the other verses. Now, did those upon whom the Apostles “laid their hands” receive the same powers as those upon whom Jesus breathed the Breath of God? No. How do we know that? According to Acts 19:5-6, we find that,

Paul “……laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied ”,

with no mention of forgiveness of sins, binding and loosing, raising the dead, casting out evil spirits, etc, etc. So then may we conclude that the powers that the Apostles received by the Breath of God were of a higher order to those received by the laying-on of hands? I think so, and in saying that we preclude the possibility of the Apostles duplicating the Breath of God by the laying-on of hands.
So then, the power to forgive/ not forgive sins was only given by the Breath of God, not by the laying-on of hands.

Protector.

 

[Cathoholic]

Protector. You stated in post 77:

“Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” Hebrews 4:16

But bringing this up to dispense with Confession is irrelevant. Catholics have no issue with coming “boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy”.

The issue is HOW do you come “boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy”?

You seem to think there were two modes regarding Christians being forgiven of their sins. One with the Apostles (with Confession) but after they are gone, then there is now no Confession to ministerial Priests because nobody other than those in the Upper Room were “breathed upon” so now there is no Confession.

Is this correct? Am I understanding correctly what you are trying to assert?

Post 119 you assert differing receptions of the Holy Spirit to conclude this (all caps mine):

So then, the power to forgive/ not forgive sins was ONLY given by the Breath of God, not by the laying-on of hands.

If this “ONLY” is true, did not St. Thomas the Apostle receive this gift?

If this “ONLY” is true, why did St. Paul forgive what he forgave in the person of Christ (he wasn’t there in the upper room)?

Why would St. James tell us to Confess our sins to one another in the context of forgiveness of sins also in the context of the presbyteroi (priests or “elders”)?

Where is one Biblical citation to assert that the power to forgive sins is “ONLY” seen with Jesus breathing upon the Apostles? Not your interpretations and derivations but an actual reference.

Why would 1st John 1:9 matter of factly tell us to Confess our sins and forget such a detail?

Why would Christ remind the Apostles He is with them until the end of time (“eon”) in Matthew 28:20?

MATTHEW 28:20 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Why would Hebrews 13:17 discuss the context of someone (anyone) as “keeping watch over your souls” if this gift only was with the twelve Apostles?

HEBREWS 13:17 17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

With your motif, why would the Israelites keep confessing their sins to their Priests after Moses died (the template of confession was already seen in the Old Covenant and was a shadow of good things to come in the New).

Pope St. Leo died in 461 A.D. (these are ancient teachings):

POPE ST. LEO THE GREAT “God in His abundant mercy has provided two main remedies for the sins of men: that they may gain eternal life by the grace of Baptism, and also by the remedy of Penance. Those who have violated the vows of their Baptism may obtain the remission of their sins by condemning themselves; the divine goodness has so decreed that the pardon of God
can only be obtained by sinners through the power Jesus Christ Himself
has conferred upon the rulers of the Church,
the power of imposing canonical penance upon sinners who confess their sins,
and of allowing them to receive the Sacraments of Christ, after they have purified their souls by a salutary satisfaction … Every Christian, therefore, must examine his conscience and cease putting the hour of his conversion off from day to day; he ought not to expect to satisfy God’s justice on his death bed. It is dangerous for a weak and ignorant man to put off his conversion to the last uncertain days of his life, when he may be unable to confess and obtain priestly absolution;
he ought, when he can, to merit pardon by a full satisfaction for his sins.”

Why should I believe your new private interpretation over the Church’s ancient one just matter of factly put forth by Pope St. Leo?

ST IRENAEUS “[The gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women . . . . are ashamed to do (Confess), and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses”

Why would St. Irenaeus in the 100’s A.D. say this of those who refused to Confess due to shame?

Why would St. Hippolytus of Rome in about 200 A.D. say . . .

**ST. HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME ** “[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).

You said:

. . . . no mention of forgiveness of sins, binding and loosing, raising the dead, casting out evil spirits, etc, etc. So then may we conclude that the powers that the Apostles received by the Breath of God were of a higher order to those received by the laying-on of hands? I think so . . .

But evidence concerning the ministry of forgiveness of sins, I DON’T think so (some of the rest is a partial truth that obscures the Confession issue so I won’t address it here).

 

[Gorgias]

So then, in the following verses we see the disciples laying hands on new believers in order that they might receive the Holy Spirit… Right away we see a difference between John 20:22 and the other verses quoted which deal with the same subject, the receiving of the Holy Spirit.

… In John, Jesus used insufflation (the Breath of God) to give the Holy Spirit, but the Apostles use the laying on of hands in the other verses. Now, did those upon whom the Apostles “laid their hands” receive the same powers as those upon whom Jesus breathed the Breath of God? No.

Fair enough, so far. What Jesus did in John 20:22, the apostles did not do in Acts 19. Of course, this makes sense; in Acts 19, baptism was the only sacrament that was being imparted. Therefore, in laying hands upon people, the apostles were not attempting to do what Jesus had done to them in the context of John 20.

in saying that we preclude the possibility of the Apostles duplicating the Breath of God by the laying-on of hands.
So then, the power to forgive/ not forgive sins was only given by the Breath of God, not by the laying-on of hands.

No, this isn’t a reasonable conclusion! The apostles weren’t attempting to ordain people in Acts 19; therefore, it’s unreasonable to suggest that, since they didn’t ordain in that instance, they were unable to do so! The fact that the apostles were carrying out the Great Commision in Acts 19 doesn’t imply that they were unable to ordain successors in apostolic ministry! That’s just silly! If I showed a child how to throw a baseball and how to hit a baseball, and then they went out and took batting practice, would you say, “hey! he doesn’t have the ability to throw a ball!”…??? Of course not – you would realize that the context of what you’re seeing is simply one activity among many!

 

[bmonk]

Again if you choose to place your trust in the history of RCC or Orthodoxy t tradition…awesome man. I place my trust in scripture validating scripture… choose to continue to go directly to God through Christ and my position that is found “In Christ” Believers have access directly to the throne of grace…and come boldly as a son not a slave or a servant…praise Jesus…thanks man…

Actually, I place my trust in Jesus, our Lord and Savior. He gave us a Church guided by the Holy Spirit, not a Bible: He never wrote a word that is recorded.

He did establish a community of disciples, and their leaders, the Twelve. He promised them the Holy Spirit to guide them and protect them from attacks and from going astray–and all the rest followed. Including ordination (Deacons, and presbyters/overseers, later divided into Bishops and Presbyters or Priests).

 

[bmonk]

Fair enough, so far. What Jesus did in John 20:22, the apostles did not do in Acts 19. Of course, this makes sense; in Acts 19, baptism was the only sacrament that was being imparted. Therefore, in laying hands upon people, the apostles were not attempting to do what Jesus had done to them in the context of John 20.

No, this isn’t a reasonable conclusion! The apostles weren’t attempting to ordain people in Acts 19; therefore, it’s unreasonable to suggest that, since they didn’t ordain in that instance, they were unable to do so! The fact that the apostles were carrying out the Great Commision in Acts 19 doesn’t imply that they were unable to ordain successors in apostolic ministry! That’s just silly! If I showed a child how to throw a baseball and how to hit a baseball, and then they went out and took batting practice, would you say, “hey! he doesn’t have the ability to throw a ball!”…??? Of course not – you would realize that the context of what you’re seeing is simply one activity among many!

I approve this message.

 

[bmonk]

So then, in the following verses we see the disciples laying hands on new believers in order that they might receive the Holy Spirit

The usual citations are from Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, where first Peter and then all the apostles are given the power to bind and to loose, both on Earth and in Heaven. Also there is John 20:21-23 where Jesus, after the resurrection, sends the disciples (making them Apostles), gives them the Holy Spirit, and gives them the power to forgive sins.
…Now, is this power only of use to that first generation? Hardly. We all need to practice forgiveness–it’s a commitment we make every time we pray the Lord’s Prayer. So why would the official Church’s leadership be denied the continuation of the power Jesus himself gave them?

Even today, we distinguish between different intents when we do laying on of hands. There are three sacramental forms, at least, of laying on of hands: ordination (of three orders or levels, bishop, priest, and deacon), confirmation, and anointing of the sick. There are also other uses, such as rites to send out missionaries. How do we know which is which? By the intent of the rite, as revealed in the setting and the words of the prayer associated with it. Acts 19:5-6 is in the context of baptism, and so reflects the intent of confirmation: sealing the neophyte with the gift of the Holy Spirit, so they can be a witness to Christ and His Gospel. The gift of the Spirit for ordination is different–not a different Spirit, but a different gift. This certainly fits another scripture: when Paul says, in 1 Cor 4, “there are many gifts, but one Spirit who gives them all.” He even elaborates, listing several that have to do with Church “administration” (apostles, prophets, teachers, administrators), and others that are more “pentecostal” or “charismatic” such as healing, tongues or prophecy.

 

[57Bill]

POPE ST. LEO THE GREAT “God in His abundant mercy has provided two main remedies for the sins of men: that they may gain eternal life by the grace of Baptism, and also by the remedy of Penance. Those who have violated the vows of their Baptism may obtain the remission of their sins by condemning themselves; the divine goodness has so decreed that the pardon of God
can only be obtained by sinners through the power Jesus Christ Himself
has conferred upon the rulers of the Church,
the power of imposing canonical penance upon sinners who confess their sins,
and of allowing them to receive the Sacraments of Christ, after they have purified their souls by a salutary satisfaction … Every Christian, therefore, must examine his conscience and cease putting the hour of his conversion off from day to day; he ought not to expect to satisfy God’s justice on his death bed. It is dangerous for a weak and ignorant man to put off his conversion to the last uncertain days of his life, when he may be unable to confess and obtain priestly absolution;
he ought, when he can, to merit pardon by a full satisfaction for his sins.”[/INDENT]

Hi can you or someone explain the doctrine or teaching of “Satisfaction”? From what I understand the Sacrament of Penance or what is used now Reconciliation consists of four parts.

Contrition, Confession, Absolution and Satisfaction.

I understand (right or wrong) that Satisfaction is to be the Penance given by the priest. I also understand (right or wrong) that if the Satisfaction isn’t performed or completed (and how is that judged but by Christ) then the sin forgiven, but no grace is received by the penitent?

I guess an example would be if a priest gave a Penance of saying two rosaries and fasting one day in the next week and none or some were only performed, forgiveness would be given but no grace received?

 

[glendab]

As far as I know the “salutory satisfaction” is the act of confessing one’s sins to the priest in the confessional. At that point, the priest gauges the worthiness of the confession, and determines two things, whether he can absolve it and what the penance will be.

Glenda

 

[Protector]

(All embellishments and extra emphasis mine – Protector)

Cathoholic;11633961] Protector. You stated in post 77

Quoterotector: .
“Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” Hebrews 4:16

Cathoholic;11633961] But bringing this up to dispense with Confession is irrelevant.

**“to dispense with Confession” **as you put it, is not the topic – the topic is, “Why must Catholics confess their sins to a priest?”
In any case, "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace…” (etc) was an “off the cuff” one-liner to suggest a meaning to judas Thaddeus for the expression “speaking directly with God”, not some Machiavellian plot to undermine one of the mainstays of the Roman Catholic Church, the Confessional.

However, there is no reason why Catholics should not confess their sins to a priest if they so desire, as to any other person in accordance with James 5:16 :-

“Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

The problem however, arises when it is made obligatory on the basis that the Apostles were able to replicate the Breath of God by the laying-on of hands and thereby passing on their greater Spiritual powers to a successor. It is interesting to note, that “insufflation”, (imparting the Holy Spirit by the Breath of God) is still a part of the liturgy in certain rites:-

“Ritual blowing occurs in the liturgies of catechumenate and baptism from a very early period and survives into the modern Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Maronite, and Coptic rites.[3] Catholic liturgy post-Vatican II (the so-called novus ordo 1969) has largely done away with insufflation, except in a special rite for the consecration of chrism on Maundy Thursday…” (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

“And therefore, saith he, when our B. Saviour would communicate his Spirit to his Disciples, he did it with Insufflation, breathing on them, thereby to signifie, se Divinum & de suo quiddam illis contribuere ." Benjamin Camfield, A theological discourse of angels and their ministries… (etc) (London, 1678) 184-185. (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
So, in asserting that the Apostles were able to transfer their greater powers to successors (Apostolic Succession) it is inferred that not only were the Apostles “partly divine”, but also the Roman Catholic Priesthood is similarly “partly divine” and that it has been enabled to “cast out devils, forgive or retain sins, raise the dead, etc, etc.

Cathoholic;11633961] You seem to think there were two modes regarding Christians being forgiven of their sins. One with the Apostles (with Confession) but after they are gone, then there is now no Confession to ministerial Priests because nobody other than those in the Upper Room were “breathed upon” so now there is no Confession.
Is this correct? Am I understanding correctly what you are trying to assert?

The short answer is, No! You are not understanding me correctly. As follows:-

Cathoholic;11633961] “…there is now no Confession to ministerial Priests because **nobody other than those in the Upper Room were “breathed upon” **

so now there is no Confession.” …
Where do I assert that, “……nobody other than those in the Upper Room were “breathed upon” ?
Where do I assert that, "…now there is no Confession.” ?
The topic under discussion is, “…Confession to ministerial Priests”, but you seem to be inferring that confession to a priest is the only option open to a sinner, thus negating the various Old and New Testament Scriptural citations that indicate confession of sins against God should be addressed directly to God, viz.

Psalm 79:9:** “Help us, O God, our saviour: and for the glory of thy name, O Lord, deliver us: and forgive us our sins for thy name’s sake:”**
Romans 10:13 “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.”
Psalm 32:5 “I acknowledged my sin unto thee, …… I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin….”
I John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
I John 2:1 “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:”
Isaiah 42:25 “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.”

Cathoholic, I must crave your indulgence for the following short extract from a commentary by John Gill (theologian) re- I John 1:9. Were I to write those thoughts in my own words it would be three times the length,
Quote:
John Gill, re- I John 1:9
“If we confess our sins,.”.. Not to one (an)other; for though it is our duty to confess our faults to our fellow creatures and fellow Christians which are committed against them, yet (we) are under no obligation to confess such as are more immediately against God, and which lie between (H)im and ourselves; …for confession of sin is to be made to God, against whom it is committed, and who only can pardon: and a man that truly confesses his sin … comes and acknowledges it before the Lord, humbly imploring, for Christ’s sake, his pardoning grace and mercy; and such obtain it:” John Gill (Theologian, 1697 – 1771)
(continued in posts to follow)

Protector.

 

[pablope]

=Protector;11682399](All embellishments and extra emphasis mine – Protector)

However, there is no reason why Catholics should not confess their sins to a priest if they so desire, as to any other person in accordance with James 5:16 :-

The problem however, arises when it is made obligatory on the basis that the Apostles were able to replicate the Breath of God by the laying-on of hands and thereby passing on their greater Spiritual powers to a successor. It is interesting to note, that “insufflation”, (imparting the Holy Spirit by the Breath of God) is still a part of the liturgy in certain rites:-

Confession is a sacrament…practiced since the AD33 at pentecost.

So, in asserting that the Apostles were able to transfer their greater powers to successors (Apostolic Succession) it is inferred that not only were the Apostles “partly divine”, but also the Roman Catholic Priesthood is similarly “partly divine” and that it has been enabled to “cast out devils, forgive or retain sins, raise the dead, etc, etc.

Maybe you should research more what laying of hands is…it is Biblical in fact

St. Paul was also laid hands on…Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

The topic under discussion is, “…Confession to ministerial Priests”, but you seem to be inferring that confession to a priest is the only option open to a sinner, thus negating the various Old and New Testament Scriptural citations that indicate confession of sins against God should be addressed directly to God, viz.

Psalm 79:9:** “Help us, O God, our saviour: and for the glory of thy name, O Lord, deliver us: and forgive us our sins for thy name’s sake:”**
Romans 10:13 “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.”
Psalm 32:5 “I acknowledged my sin unto thee, …… I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin….”
I John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
I John 2:1 “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:”
Isaiah 42:25 “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.”

By the way…where do those verses you cited indicate or tell the manner of how one is to confess to God? Again…the manner or how to go about confessing…if not in those verses…can you cite the chapter and verse in the NT on how to go about how to confess?

 

[pablope]

**(A

Cathoholic, I must crave your indulgence for the following short extract from a commentary by John Gill (theologian) re- I John 1:9. Were I to write those thoughts in my own words it would be three times the length,
Quote:
John Gill, re- I John 1:9
“If we confess our sins,.”.**. Not to one (an)other; for though it is our duty to confess our faults to our fellow creatures and fellow Christians which are committed against them, yet (we) are under no obligation to confess such as are more immediately against God, and which lie between (H)im and ourselves; …for confession of sin is to be made to God, against whom it is committed, and who only can pardon: and a man that truly confesses his sin … comes and acknowledges it before the Lord, humbly imploring, for Christ’s sake, his pardoning grace and mercy; and such obtain it:” John Gill (Theologian, 1697 – 1771)
(continued in posts to follow)

Protector.

May I indulge with a question…why do you agree with John Gill? Why do you think his interpretation or explanation is correct?

What makes John Gill more believable to you…than say…Scott Hahn, who wrote a book on the healing power of the sacrament of confession (Lord Have Mercy by Scott Hahn)?

 

[Asiyreh]

Ok since I’m in that frame of mind let’s imagine I’m Saint Peter.

It’s around ooo lets’s say Ad 60. Things are starting to heat up in the empire, it’s getting pretty dangerous to be a Christian never mind it’s leader. The flowering church is in bloom fulfilling the scriptural promise to bring the One true God to all nations of the world.
Now would I insure the continuity of the church? Would I continue in the traditions I instituted in the authority of Christ, when I said And his bishopric let another take?

I think I would.

 

[Protector]

**(Continuation of my previous post - All embellishments and extra emphasis mine) **

Cathoholic;11633961] Post 119 you assert differing receptions of the Holy Spirit …

If you are asserting that what I said (below) is not the case, then you infer that every believer (potentially) has the power to forgive sins against God.

Quote from Protector:
So then, the power to forgive/ not forgive sins was ONLY given by the Breath of God, not by the laying-on of hands.

Cathoholic;11633961] If this **“ONLY” **is true, did not St. Thomas the Apostle receive this gift?

Ah! St Thomas, we know so little about him. It’s possible that he automatically received the “gift” when he made his confession of faith,

** “Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” **John 20:27-28

Also,

**“… many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:” **John 20:30,

so maybe the Breath of God was administered, but was “…not written in this book:

I have to admit that I find no evidence to suggest that any of the Apostles actually forgave any sins against God. Perhaps you have some Scriptural citations to offer. Meanwhile I offer one to the contrary: In the following verse we see Peter confronting Simon Magus,

“Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, **Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.” **Acts 8:21-24.

I can find no evidence to suggest that Peter complied with Simon’s request. At the same time it does not seem that he exercised his Christ-given prerogative to, “retain” Simon’s sins either.

Cathoholic;11633961] If this “ONLY” is true, why did St. Paul forgive what he forgave in the person of Christ (he wasn’t there in the upper room)?

“But when God, who from my birth set me apart and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia” Galatians 1:15

**"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:” ** I Corinthians 11:23

Who can say what else Paul ***“received of the Lord” ***whilst in Arabia having a “one-on-one” intensive course on the Gospel? As has been quoted before, (particularly by Roman Catholics in defence of Sacred Tradition and as an attack on Sola Scriptura),

**“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” **John 21:25

However, the important thing to remember when considering the **“many other things which Jesus did” **which were not written down, according to John 20:31 everything that we require for salvation **IS **written in the Scriptures,

**“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” ** John 20:30 and 31

Cathoholic;11633961] Why would St. James tell us to Confess our sins to one another in the context of forgiveness of sins also in the context of the presbyteroi (priests or “elders”)?

James 5:16 “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

Cathoholic;11633961] “…also in the context of the presbyteroi (priests or “elders”),

This part of the verse is in relation to, **“…pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” **i.e:- “Prayers for the sick”.
If you assert by that expression, **“in the context of the presbyteroi (priests or “elders”),” **that **“elders” **are equal with **“priests”, **then you must accept (“by your motif”) the conclusion that, “elders” are able to forgive sins as well.

Matthew 18:15 “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.”

These verses refer to the sins that we commit against others for which we are sorry.

(Continued in my next post)

Protector.

 

[Protector]

Cathoholic;11633961] …Why would 1st John 1:9 matter of factly tell us to Confess our sins and forget such a detail?

Not sure what you are asking Cathoholic; Sorry!

In I John 1:9 we are told the good news that we can open our hearts to God and receive forgiveness.

Cathoholic;11633961] Why would Christ remind the Apostles He is with them until the end of time (“eon”) in Matthew 28:20?

As a part of the Body of Christ all believers enjoy the benefits of that promise.

Why would Hebrews 13:17 discuss the context of someone (anyone) as “keeping watch over your souls” if this gift only was with the twelve Apostles?
Quote: “…if this gift only was with the twelve Apostles.”

Every true believer is empowered by the in-filling Holy Spirit who endows them with the power to speak the Gospel truths faithfully and boldly, so one supposes that in that way your “leaders…(if they are themselves filled with the Holy Spirit)… are keeping watch over your souls”, by keeping you free from error.

Cathoholic; With your motif, why would the Israelites keep confessing their sins to their Priests after Moses died (the template of confession was already seen in the Old Covenant and was a shadow of good things to come in the New).

Good point Cathoholic. The Israelites confessed their sins to the Priests because the priests were the MEDIATORS between them and God. The fact that their original mediator Moses was now dead had no bearing on that fact because the Tabernacle/Sanctuary was set up to facilitate the reconciliation of the people to God by means of the sacrificial system. However, the priests were only a type of Christ and became redundant when Christ became the “Perfect Sacrifice”. At that same time, the sacrificial system came to an end and the prophesy in Daniel 9:27 was fulfilled:-

“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week (H)e shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, …………” Daniel 9:27

**“And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;” **Matthew 27:51

**“For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” **Hebrews 10:4

**" By the which will, we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; ” **Hebrews 10:10 -12

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” I Timothy 2:5

Cathoholic;11633961] Pope St. Leo died in 461 A.D. (these are ancient teachings):
POPE ST. LEO THE GREAT “…… Jesus Christ Himself has conferred upon the rulers of the Church, the power of imposing canonical penance upon sinners who confess their sins, ……… Every Christian, therefore, must examine his conscience and cease putting the hour of his conversion off from day to day; …when he may be unable to confess and obtain priestly absolution; he ought, when he can, to merit pardon by a full satisfaction for his sins.”

Cathoholic;11633961] Why should I believe your new private interpretation over the Church’s ancient one just matter of factly put forth by Pope St. Leo?

So now we have come full circle, and have arrived back at the OP’s question:-

"Why must Catholics confess their sins to a priest?"

The point that is being missed here is that the Apostles, did not transfer the power of the Holy Spirit from themselves to the new believers, they laid hands on them and prayed to the Father that the new believers would receive the Holy Spirit.

**“And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” **Luke 24:49

**“But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” **

Now, do you suppose that the power they were to receive was transferable by the “laying-on of hands”?

BTW, what does this infer ( extract from the Common Form for Absolution, “Sancta Missa”) “And now I absolve you from your sins; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”?

**Surely only God can absolve us from our sins, **

**“And when Jesus had seen their faith, he saith to the sick of the palsy: Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. And there were some of the scribes sitting there, and thinking in their hearts: Why doth this man speak thus? he blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins, but God only?” ** Mark 2:5-7.

Now then, did Jesus correct the scribes in that regard? No, but he confirmed their statement, and at the same time stated that he was God incarnate, by the following,

**“But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy - I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.” ** Mark 2:10 and 11

Another question, to whom did the Apostles confess. Was it to each other, or to God?

Thank you for well thought out post Cathoholic, and God Bless you.

Protector.

Protector.

 

[Protector]

Hello again pablope! I don’t think that we have met on the Forum since the “Sabbath versus Sunday” debate.

pablope;11682470] Confession is a sacrament…practiced since the AD33 at Pentecost.

I don’t view it as a Sacrament, I look upon it as a Blessed relief. After I have confessed my sins to God, it’s as though a ten ton truck has just been lifted off me. How about you?

pablope;11682470] Maybe you should research more what laying of hands is.

It’s not rocket science pablope.

.

**laying of hands **is Biblical in fact

And you should know, that I know that it is Biblical in as much as it has been an important part of my argument thus far, and by the Scriptural citations that I have used which contain that phrase.

pablope;11682470] St. Paul was also laid hands on…Acts 13:

Yes he was, but that was not an ordination in Acts 13:3, seeing that Saul (Paul) was already an Apostle, made so by Jesus Christ Himself. It was a common form of greeting and blessing among the Jews at that time. However, you are right in saying that, “St. Paul was also laid hands on”, as we are told in, Acts 9:11 and 12 that the Lord spoke to Ananias, ( a disciple in Damascus) in a vision,

pablope;11682470]
“And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, (12) And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.”

pablope;11682470] By the way…where do those verses you cited indicate or tell the manner of how one is to confess to God?

May I answer your question, with a question? What is the mode of address when you are sitting in the Confessional, and where in the Scriptures is that found?
A Roman Catholic friend told me once, that it was something like:- “Bless me father, for I have sinned”. Is that about right?

pablope;11682470] Again…the manner or how to go about confessing…if not in those verses…can you cite the chapter and verse in the NT on how to go about how to confess?

Do you know, I’ve never really thought about it pablope. But at the same time, when we sin against another we generally say to them that we are sorry for what we did, and ask their forgiveness. It’s much the same when we confess our sins to God. Bearing in mind that God knows every sin that we have committed anyway, but itemizing them is a way of indicating to God that you are fully aware of them also, and that you know that they are an offence against His holiness, and that you are determined, as much as is within your power, to avoid committing those transgressions in the future. As for Scriptural citations as per your question, I do not believe that there are any as such, but the up-side of that is, because there is no set form of words to say it tends to ensure that what words that you do utter come from the heart, and the hope is - from a truly penitent heart.

Now to save space (and time - it’s bush fire season Down-Under so we are ever vigilant), I have taken the liberty of answering the group of questions in your next post, here in this one.

pablope;11682470] May I indulge with a question…why do you agree with John Gill? Why do you think his interpretation or explanation is correct?
What makes John Gill more believable to you…than say…Scott Hahn, who wrote a book on the healing power of the sacrament of confession (Lord Have Mercy by Scott Hahn)?

The book in question is US$23. The internet site on which I view the Bible commentary from John Gill is absolutely free. Apart from that pecuniary reason, I think that I go to John Gill (Theologian) because his commentaries usually check out with the Scriptures and he supplies other cross references from both the Jewish Bible, and the New Testament. If I am in any doubt as to the veracity of his commentaries, I check other commentaries (including Catholic ones), and emulating the Jews of Berea,

“…in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

Protector.

 

[Cathoholic]

It is interesting Protector that you would admit that in the Old Testament they
had Confession to the Priest, yet you appeal to Old Testament verses to try to dispense with Confession to Priests. Why?

Do you see your own self-contradiction here?

Not only did your citations of the Old Testament verses not circumvent Confession to Priests, but none of the New Testament verses you cited do either.

Interesting Protector that you would admit that in the Old Testament they
had Confession to the Priest . . . .

Good point Cathoholic. The Israelites confessed their sins to the Priests because the priests were the MEDIATORS between them and God. The fact that their original mediator Moses was now dead had no bearing on that fact because the Tabernacle/Sanctuary was set up to facilitate the reconciliation of the people to God by means of the sacrificial system. However, the priests were only a type of Christ and became redundant when Christ became the “Perfect Sacrifice”.

. . . . yet you appeal to Old Testament verses to try to dispense with Confession to Priests. Why?

Psalm 79:9: “Help us, O God, our saviour: and for the glory of thy name, O Lord, deliver us: and forgive us our sins for thy name’s sake:” . . .

. . . . Psalm 32:5 “I acknowledged my sin unto thee, …… I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin….”

The issue isn’t: “Confessing transgressions unto the Lord”.

The issue is HOW you Confess your transgressions unto the Lord.

And I am saying the Bible tells us . . . . through the Priests . . . specifically. You seem to deny those verses.

You also quoted 1st Timothy to try to make your argument of doing away with Confession to Priests.

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” I Timothy 2:5

Then you seem to say you get to go directly to God (without specifically mentioning Jesus’ mediation). I think you mean you Confess directly to Jesus (who of course is True God and True man). Am I correct?

After I have confessed my sins to God, it’s as though a ten ton truck has just been lifted off me.

Do you understand that in forgiving of sins, Jesus works in and through the Priest? We call that in “the person of Christ” (in persona Christi).

Confession is HOW we Confess our sins to Jesus.

So the real question is HOW does Christ mediate? Through the Priests (as the Bible explicitly says) or when you go directly to God alone without going to the Priests (which is not taught anywhere in Scripture or Tradition)?

You said:

Every true believer is empowered by the in-filling Holy Spirit who endows them with the power to speak the Gospel truths faithfully and boldly, so one supposes that in that way your “leaders…(if they are themselves filled with the Holy Spirit)… are keeping watch over your souls”, by keeping you free from error.

Then why obey them if they are officially teaching error? And why would the Holy Spirit tell us explicitly these men are watching “over your souls”? And if they are not teaching error, why not obey them when they tell you to Confess your sins to the Priest?

HEBREWS 13:17 17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

**NOT HEBREWS 13:17 (Phantom Verse) ** 17 Obey your leaders. But we are all (“Every true believer”) “leaders” who are “true believers” and submit to your own personal interpretation of the Bible; for you are keeping watch over your own souls if you yourself are really filled with the Holy Spirit.

Every true believer is empowered by the in-filling Holy Spirit who endows them with the power to speak the Gospel truths faithfully and boldly, so one supposes that in that way your “leaders…(if they are themselves filled with the Holy Spirit)… are keeping watch over your souls”, by keeping you free from error.

What about when two of these “true believers” disagree on “Gospel truths”? Who is correct? How do you know?

 

[Protector]

Cathoholic;11745768] It is interesting Protector that you would admit that in the Old Testament they had Confession to the Priest, yet you appeal to Old Testament verses to try to dispense with Confession to Priests. Why?

You are glossing over the main point of the OP’s question which is encompassed in the word, **“MUST” **as in,

“Why MUST Catholics confess their sins to a priest?”

Again, you are falsely accusing me of:-

"try(ing) to dispense with Confession to Priests"

Both of those points are covered in one of my previous posts to this thread, viz.

"… there is no reason why Catholics should not confess their sins to a priest if they so desire, as to any other person in accordance with James 5:16 :-

Quote:
“Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

And,

The problem however, arises when it is made obligatory on the basis that the Apostles were able to replicate the Breath of God by the laying-on of hands and thereby passing on their greater Spiritual powers to a successor.

Now, can you Cathoholic, provide ANY Scriptural citations to prove that any “successor to the Apostles” was able to - “…raise the dead, cast out demons…” or forgive/retain sins against God, etc. (i.e. Apostolic Succession as understood by the Roman Catholic Church)?

Cathoholic;11745768] Not only did your citations of the Old Testament verses not circumvent Confession to Priests, but none of the New Testament verses you cited do either.

I say again Cathoholic, IT IS NOT MY INTENSION TO "circumvent Confession to Priests ". My reasons for contributing to this thread are firstly, to give a Non-Roman Catholic answer to the OP’s question,

**“Why must Catholics confess their sins to a priest?”, **

and secondly,

Using Scriptural citations, and the difference between the greater Spiritual powers received by **the “Breath of God” **as compared to the lessor Spiritual powers received by "the laying-on of hands", to state that,
Confession to a priest, of sins against God, in the context of receiving forgiveness for those sins is un-Biblical in as much as Apostolic greater Spiritual powers could not be transferred by the laying-on of hands, but only by the “Breath of God”.
Furthermore, in stating that “confession to a priest” is a “MUST” you are asserting that only those that confess their sins to a priest can receive forgiveness of those sins, and therefore by inference, can receive Salvation.
What of those Catholics, possibly imprisoned in a non-Christian country, who may have no access to a priest. Are they condemned to go to Hell when they die because of that?
I am of course postulating that the Catholics in question are not in prison because of their religion.

Cathoholic;11745768] Interesting Protector that you would admit that in the Old Testament they had Confession to the Priest . . . .

Cathoholic;11745768] . . . . yet you appeal to Old Testament verses to try to dispense with Confession to Priests. Why?

I will pass over the fact that you have stated the above twice in the same post, and say AGAIN that, IT IS NOT MY INTENSION TO "circumvent Confession to Priests ".
My intention all along has been to dispel the myth that Roman Catholic priests have the power to forgive sins against God, by virtue of the transfer of powers from the Apostle Peter by the laying-on of hands.

Furthermore, just reflect on the following:-
The Catholic Church has an estimated 1.2 billion adherents; imagine, if you will, how many billions more people might be Catholics if not for the requirement of confession ONLY to priests.

The issue isn’t: “Confessing transgressions unto the Lord”.
The issue is HOW you Confess your transgressions unto the Lord.

I believe that my post to “pablope” has adequately resolved that issue Catholic:-
viz.

…when we sin against another we generally say to them that we are sorry for what we did, and ask their forgiveness. It’s much the same when we confess our sins to God. Bearing in mind that God knows every sin that we have committed anyway, but itemizing them is a way of indicating to God that you are fully aware of them also, and that you know that they are an offence against His holiness, and that you are determined, as much as is within your power, to avoid committing those transgressions in the future. As for Scriptural citations as per your question, I do not believe that there are any as such, but the up-side of that is, because there is no set form of words to say it tends to ensure that what words that you do utter come from the heart, and the hope is - from a truly penitent heart.

Cathoholic;11745768] And I am saying the Bible tells us . . . . through the Priests . . . specifically. You seem to deny those verses.

It is usual practice on the Forum Cathoholic to give the Scriptural citations on which you are relying to support your statements, so I cannot reply until you do so.

I will answer most of the remainder of your questions at another time.

Protector.

 

[SPH1]

I seen Catholic go to confession but turn right around and do the same things months later to just go to confession again and confess the same sins over and over.

Yes, and you’ve probably seen the "once saved, always saved’ group sin without a second thought. So long as one has faith everything’s okay…right?

What works for some won’t work for another. But we as Christians should all be working for the same end result, not condemning others and stating your the ONLY right one.

God is not the author of confusion. 1 Cor 14:33. So did not found Protestantism. Or your system of theological thought.

You have apparently completely abandoned the notion that there is TRUTH, replacing it with opinion and what feels good.