Why must Catholics confess their sins to a priest?

[SPH1]

I find not such a requirement in the Bible. As such, I find that a man may confess and be absolved of his sins by speaking directly with God.

You make the mistake of most Protestants from the “Radical Reformation”, completely taking God/Christ out of the sacraments. You do not see that in the sacrament, confessing to the priest is confessing to Christ…directly.

Take Moses before the burning bush. Shall we assume that according to you, Moses should have turned and walked away from the burning bush to “go directly to God”?

The Sacraments are like the burning bush. The most “direct” and certain contact one can have with God. Turning away from the Sacraments is not only uncertain contact with God, one can argue it is a rejection of God.

 

[Cathoholic]

Protector. You said:

Quote:
Again, you are falsely accusing me of:- . . . .
. . . . “try(ing) to dispense with Confession to Priests”

OK. So you are saying Confession to Priests is necessary? Are you agreeing with me?

I say it is necessary in an ordinary sense.

I am talking about people who have these truths presented to them and yet reject these truths.

I am not talking about a person on a desert-island, infant, etc. I am talking about people who have this taught to them and yet still REJECT it.

You also stated:

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)?

I am sorry, but with the exception of forgive and retain sins (which I am addressing) is just getting off topic. I am not going to do it.

I will await for you to clarify if you concur with me on the necessity of Confessing your sins to a Priest or if in fact you ARE trying to “dispense with Confession to Priests”.

I say it is necessary in an ordinary sense.

Yes God MAY work directly in an EXTRA-ordinary sense with a person too but these individual workings are not revealed truths. It is not in Oral Tradition or Written Tradition (Scripture) if God will work in this manner with you or I or John or Jane Doe down the street, if we/they are NEGLECTING to Confess our sins as I have shown how the Bible teaches us with regard to Confession.

But it IS revealed truth that we should confess our sins to one another in the context of the Priests for the forgiveness of sins.

So are you saying Confession to Priests is necessary in this sense?

 

[Amandil]

Protector-

Even if Scripture had no mention of Apostolic Succession, that still wouldn’t mean that Apostolic succession is false.

That’s called the fallacy of arguing from silence.

No where in the Bible does the Bible say that it is the sole rule regarding faith morals. But you’re going by an obvious double standard by demanding that for something to be believed it must be in Scripture.

Regardless, in 1 Cor 4 Paul sends Timothy to the Church in Corinth to “remind you of my ways in Christ.”

Several times Paul refers to Timothy as “my son”, as Christ was the Son of the Father and was sent with “all authority in heaven and on earth”.

So Christ sent the Apostles with “all authority in heaven and on earth.”

So when Paul sent Timothy as “my son”, he’s sending Timothy with the same authority that Paul has as an Apostle.

In 2 Timothy 2:2 we see that Paul tells Timothy, who is now a bishop in his own right, to pass this on to other “faithful men”.

Given the fact of history and the constant witness of the early church there is absolutely no reason not to believe that this spiritual succession from Apostle to bishop to disciple/priest/bishop was not to continue.

Secondly, priests don’t “forgive sins against God” on their own. They receive that faculty from their bishop, who received his authority through the same Apostolic succession. They are granted that authority by grace. The same way th eyes are granted the authority to confect the Eucharist.

In any case, your argument fails because your underlying premise is faulty.

We confess our sins to a priest (or bishop) because that is what the Church has ordained as guided by the Holy Spirit. Confession of sins goes all the way back to the first century (see the Didache). And while the practice may have changed the doctrine has not.

God gave men the authority to forgive sins in His name (Matt 9:8), and through tje Apostles and their successors this ministry is effected.

 

[rom422]

Sorry for my intrusion. I have been following this thread and taking notes. Learning a lot. Thanks everyone, and don’t stop!

 

[guiltyofdoubt]

I will say as a current participant in RCIA, and converting from LC-MS, that confession to a priest and “apostolic succession” are the things I’m having the hardest time with. I have always been of the belief that my repentance was to be done through prayer directly to my Lord. I mean, we are still asked to pray in the RCC, so why doesn’t that include asking for forgiveness directly? Yes, I know the passages where Jesus says to Peter that “what he binds on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and what he looses on Earth will be loosed on Heaven”, but I don’t see how that necessarily means we cannot go to the Lord ourselves as well. I also don’t understand why the Priest cannot absolve us at Mass after The Penitential Act? That would be “loosing us of our sins”, after we confess publicly. Why must they be enumerated specifically? That is not in the scripture. Certainly our Lord Jesus Christ has the power to hear us all in our prayers, and know of our repentance, and has the power to forgive us directly! I am converting because I am married to a Catholic woman (for almost 20 years now), and have a daughter that is being raised Catholic, and I have attended Mass off an on for almost all of our marriage, and have not attended the LC at all, though I was confirmed in that denomination as a teenager. I wish us to be a united Catholic family, but the idea of going to confession, which is coming up if I am to be confirmed on Easter Vigil, is making me very uneasy.

 

[Gorgias]

I will say as a current participant in RCIA, and converting from LC-MS, that confession to a priest and “apostolic succession” are the things I’m having the hardest time with.

You realize, of course, that apostolic succession is Scriptural, right? In Acts 1:15ff, the apostles choose a successor to Judas. That’s apostolic succession!

I mean, we are still asked to pray in the RCC, so why doesn’t that include asking for forgiveness directly?

Because that’s not what Scripture calls for! Is there any Scripture that you can point to, that you would say that demonstrates this approach?

I also don’t understand why the Priest cannot absolve us at Mass after The Penitential Act? That would be “loosing us of our sins”, after we confess publicly. Why must they be enumerated specifically? That is not in the scripture.

The right to regulate the sacraments belongs to the Church; it is through this authority that the Church sets its discipline for the sacraments.

 

[guiltyofdoubt]

Because that’s not what Scripture calls for! Is there any Scripture that you can point to, that you would say that demonstrates this approach?

Well I would say to this that it can’t be both ways. There are many things Catholics do for which there is no scriptural backing. I understand that the Church has the authority to define what can and can’t be done, but to say that you can’t pray for forgiveness directly just because it isn’t scriptural would mean that the other things the Catholic Church teaches that aren’t scriptural shouldn’t exist either. If God knows every hair we have on our head, He certainly has the power to hear us, know our heart, and forgive us. Nothing is impossible with God.

 

[PRmerger]

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…

The above is interesting on a few levels.

The first one is that it is unbiblical. Using the paradigm of “Scripture validating Scripture” is never actually validated in…er…Scripture. Not a single verse tells us to do this. (That the Bereans used Scripture, well, the Old Testament to test what St. Paul said is really an affirmation of using the Old Testament to validate Oral Teaching.)

Secondly, each and every time Wretched Man quotes from, say, Hebrews, or the Gospel of Mark, or Revelation, he is actually placing his trust in the tradition of the Catholic Church. For it is ONLY by giving his tacit submission to the authority of the CC that he even knows that these books

 

[seaton2005]

I find not such a requirement in the Bible. As such, I find that a man may confess and be absolved of his sins by speaking directly with God.

Biblical scholars tell us that the idea of confession is not a biblical requirement - it’s a Catholic made requirement.

 

[guiltyofdoubt]

You realize, of course, that apostolic succession is Scriptural, right? In Acts 1:15ff, the apostles choose a successor to Judas. That’s apostolic succession!

I do know the basis for it, but I would say that in 2000 years, if even a few mistakes are made in appointing successors (Judas-like successors, I mean), and then they make more mistakes. all of a sudden you have exponential growth of human beings acting as apostolic successors that probably shouldn’t be. We have seen the results of this, sadly.

I would also suggest that though the Church teaches that the end of the original Apostolic Age was the end of - errr - not sure if I am saying this correctly, but maybe I mean basic doctrine? How do we know that the Holy Spirit couldn’t continue in practice, and that the Reformation wasn’t actually the result of the act of the Holy Spirit, in an effort to expand the exposure of Christianity? Catholics will say we know this because the Church says so, and that the Church alone is tasked with guarding, and defining, and teaching the Will of the Holy Spirit (God) through the Magisterium of the Church, but again, I would suggest that since we acknowledge the “Mysteries” of many things that have to do with God, as we cannot fully understand God, we then cannot know for sure what was the true Will of God as it applies to the Reformation and its results.

The right to regulate the sacraments belongs to the Church; it is through this authority that the Church sets its discipline for the sacraments.

True. But again, why must sins be specifically enumerated? Just because the Church says so? What is the reason? I posed the question to my Priest, and he said its so we know what to forgive, but God also knows what to forgive, and besides, all sin is forgivable through Christ and His Sacrifice! Do Priests ever say “No, you are not forgiven”? Not if you repent, they don’t. So it stands to reason that it could be done in Mass, without specific enumeration.

 

[Amandil]

From a friend of mine:

“The corporate covenant.*This is the family covenant. In this covenant, God deals with his family as a whole. It is seen in Leviticus 16 where the high priest, who is covenant head and representative between the nation and God, offers YOM KIPPUR to forgive the sins of the covenant family (nation/corporate entity). This is the covenant which is mentioned also in Hebrews 7-10 as we see Jesus as the Great High Priest offering an eternal YOM KIPPUR for the sins of His people. Since His people is now the Church, this means that the Church can never fail to be in covenant, for no sin which the Church commits, either through misguided or wicked leaders, or evil people within, can fail to be paid for by the covenant renewal sacrifice of Christ’s eternal Blood. This Sacrifice of renewal is eternally present before the Father in heaven and continually renews the covenant between the Church and the Father. If Christ was not there in the heavenly tabernacle offering this, the Church would have long ago been cast away for Her spiritual and physical acts of adultery and another kingdom family would have been sought.”

guiltyofdoubt:

I do know the basis for it, but I would say that in 2000 years, if even a few mistakes are made in appointing successors (Judas-like successors, I mean), and then they make more mistakes. all of a sudden you have exponential growth of human beings acting as apostolic successors that probably shouldn’t be. We have seen the results of this, sadly.*

According to what I cited above, what you posted amounts to a non-sequitur. Not only because of the covenant promise of Christ (Matt 16 & 18), but also due to His eternal covenant of atonement (Heb 7-10).

 

[Gorgias]

I do know the basis for it, but I would say that in 2000 years, if even a few mistakes are made in appointing successors (Judas-like successors, I mean), and then they make more mistakes. all of a sudden you have exponential growth of human beings acting as apostolic successors that probably shouldn’t be.

I guess I would ask you what it means to make a ‘mistake’ in choosing a successor?

How do we know that the Holy Spirit couldn’t continue in practice, and that the Reformation wasn’t actually the result of the act of the Holy Spirit, in an effort to expand the exposure of Christianity?

There are a couple directions I could go with this, but… what do you mean by “expand the exposure of Christianity”? After all, the Reformation happened in lands that were already Christian lands!

we then cannot know for sure what was the true Will of God as it applies to the Reformation and its results.

Fair enough. Yet, if we believe that the teachings of the Church on faith and morals are true and protected from error by the Holy Spirit… and we note that the teachings of Reformation communities differ from the teachings of the Catholic Church to lesser or greater degrees, then wouldn’t we have to conclude that the teachings of Reformation communities are in an objective way ‘deficient’ in the fullness of the truth? It’s true that we cannot know God’s purpose in allowing the Reformation; but this doesn’t equate to a concession that the teachings of the Reformers is somehow Spirit-led, does it?

True. But again, why must sins be specifically enumerated? Just because the Church says so? What is the reason? I posed the question to my Priest, and he said its so we know what to forgive

If priests are to do what Christ commanded – forgive sins – then don’t they need to know what sins they’re forgiving? After all, Christ knew – because He is God! – but humans don’t have that ability to know others’ sins intuitively!

, but God also knows what to forgive

True, but if we’re going to a priest, it’s the priest who forgives sins, through the authority given them by Christ. Therefore, if the priest offers the absolution, he needs to know what the particular sins are, doesn’t he?

, and besides, all sin is forgivable through Christ and His Sacrifice!

All sin is forgivable by Christ because He is God. Yet, again, it is the priest who forgives, right?

Do Priests ever say “No, you are not forgiven”? Not if you repent, they don’t.

I think I’d disagree: if you repent – but have no intention of amending your life – then that’s a lack of contrition that might warrant a priest to withhold absolution.

So it stands to reason that it could be done in Mass, without specific enumeration.

Well… there’s already forgiveness of sins within Mass: venial sins are forgiven in this context. However, the forgiveness of mortal sins requires sacramental reconciliation…!

 

[Tony_the_mad]

I will say as a current participant in RCIA, and converting from LC-MS, that confession to a priest and “apostolic succession” are the things I’m having the hardest time with. I have always been of the belief that my repentance was to be done through prayer directly to my Lord. I mean, we are still asked to pray in the RCC, so why doesn’t that include asking for forgiveness directly? Yes, I know the passages where Jesus says to Peter that “what he binds on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and what he looses on Earth will be loosed on Heaven”, but I don’t see how that necessarily means we cannot go to the Lord ourselves as well. I also don’t understand why the Priest cannot absolve us at Mass after The Penitential Act? That would be “loosing us of our sins”, after we confess publicly. Why must they be enumerated specifically? That is not in the scripture. Certainly our Lord Jesus Christ has the power to hear us all in our prayers, and know of our repentance, and has the power to forgive us directly! I am converting because I am married to a Catholic woman (for almost 20 years now), and have a daughter that is being raised Catholic, and I have attended Mass off an on for almost all of our marriage, and have not attended the LC at all, though I was confirmed in that denomination as a teenager. I wish us to be a united Catholic family, but the idea of going to confession, which is coming up if I am to be confirmed on Easter Vigil, is making me very uneasy.

I don’t think that you understand the Catholic teaching of the sacrament of reconciliation. The Church encourages taking our sins directly to God. Indeed, the Church has many prayers that we can use as ‘templates’ to help us with that process. To start there is the Lord’s prayer, which Catholics strongly promote and the Act of Contrition.

You rightly worry about being overly scrupulous, but you forget the other side of the coin. For we also need to guard against being too secure in our righteousness. Confession does not begin when you enter the confessional, but when you make an examination of conscience. Nor does it end with absolution, but through concrete acts of penance both to show that we are truly sorry and to humbly thank God.

An analogy to the Catholic understanding of confession is in the story of Jesus healing the 10 lepers. The lepers approached Jesus asking to be healed. Jesus healed the lepers and sent them to the high priests both in fulfillment of the Jewish law and to be accepted back by the community. Then one leper returned to thank Jesus. That is how Catholics approach confession first we recognize that we are lepers (sinners). Then we approach Christ with humility and faith; this may happen either in the confessional with the priest present or before. (For instance if we die before we confess our sins to the priest then this repentance still counts.) The priest can helps us with this step as well. Then we approach the priests for reconciliation with the community.

The truly penitent person has already approached Christ and has been forgiven before they enter the confessional. They are the lepers who approach the high priests to be reconciled with the community in accordance to the Law. Less penitent people, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation have another opportunity to approach Christ who is specially present (not in the Priest) but in the sacramental opportunity. For them, the sacrament is both taking the effort to approach Christ and to go to the priest for reconciliation with the community afterwards. Finally, Catholics should return to thank Christ through penance.

 

[zz912]

I will say as a current participant in RCIA, and converting from LC-MS, that confession to a priest and “apostolic succession” are the things I’m having the hardest time with. I have always been of the belief that my repentance was to be done through prayer directly to my Lord. I mean, we are still asked to pray in the RCC, so why doesn’t that include asking for forgiveness directly? Yes, I know the passages where Jesus says to Peter that “what he binds on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and what he looses on Earth will be loosed on Heaven”, but I don’t see how that necessarily means we cannot go to the Lord ourselves as well. I also don’t understand why the Priest cannot absolve us at Mass after The Penitential Act? That would be “loosing us of our sins”, after we confess publicly. Why must they be enumerated specifically? That is not in the scripture. Certainly our Lord Jesus Christ has the power to hear us all in our prayers, and know of our repentance, and has the power to forgive us directly! I am converting because I am married to a Catholic woman (for almost 20 years now), and have a daughter that is being raised Catholic, and I have attended Mass off an on for almost all of our marriage, and have not attended the LC at all, though I was confirmed in that denomination as a teenager. I wish us to be a united Catholic family, but the idea of going to confession, which is coming up if I am to be confirmed on Easter Vigil, is making me very uneasy.

I think you’ve got the whole thing a bit backward in how you are approaching it. The focus is on your question of why can’t something be done in such-and-such a way. The better question is to ask how God wants it to be.

If we focus on why something can’t be done the way we prefer, we will eventually question everything. Why do we need to go to Mass on Sunday, why can’t we just pray individually? Why do we need to be married in the Church? Why can’t we just promise to each other in our own ceremony? (Or no ceremony at all, just promise to one another while eating breakfast?) Why do we need to be baptized? Why can’t we just say a quick sinner’s prayer internally and that’s the end of it?

The focus in all these is on our own preferences. We should instad ask what God wants, and how He set it up. We are certainly allowed to ask why it was set up a certain way, but our focus should be on what He wants, not what we want. God wants us to do certain behaviors (the sacraments) as they are directed by His Church (who He gave all authority to). He does this for our benefit and good. We need to do these behaviors, because we tend to fool ourselves when we don’t.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Is there any Scripture that you can point to, that you would say that demonstrates this approach?

Well I would say to this that it can’t be both ways. There are many things Catholics do for which there is no scriptural backing.

That’s fair enough. Let me respond in two ways:

First, the reason I asked for Scripture wasn’t because Catholics need to find a Scripture verse for a direct justification of every potential action. It was, rather, because you had asserted that the need for confession of each sin wasn’t Scriptural, and you had posited that it was more reasonable to go directly to God in prayer (based on your Lutheran background). Given that perspective, then, I was asking you what the basis was for that belief; and, given that it was based on your life experience in the Lutheran community, I would have expected that it was Scripturally-based. Hence the request for Scripture to back up your assertion.

Second, however, the phrase “there are many things that Catholics do for which there is no Scriptural backing” is misleading. It makes it sound as if Catholics do things on their own, by their own authority. That’s not the case. There may not be direct Scriptural referent to actions, but they are Scripturally based in their authority: namely, Christ’s proxy given to Peter in Matthew 16:19. In other words, Catholic teaching is Scripturally based, but some teachings proceed from Jesus having given the keys of the kingdom to Peter. That’s a far cry from “not Scripturally based”, if what you meant by it was a lack of Scriptural authority…

If God knows every hair we have on our head, He certainly has the power to hear us, know our heart, and forgive us. Nothing is impossible with God.

Agreed. Yet, if he’s already given us a method though which forgiveness is to be gained, and that method itself is explicitly in Scripture, how do we have the right to trump it and say, “nah, no thanks, not for me. I’ll go do this other thing over here that You didn’t command, Jesus…”?

 

[bmonk]

I will say as a current participant in RCIA, and converting from LC-MS, that confession to a priest and “apostolic succession” are the things I’m having the hardest time with. I have always been of the belief that my repentance was to be done through prayer directly to my Lord. I mean, we are still asked to pray in the RCC, so why doesn’t that include asking for forgiveness directly? Yes, I know the passages where Jesus says to Peter that “what he binds on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and what he looses on Earth will be loosed on Heaven”, but I don’t see how that necessarily means we cannot go to the Lord ourselves as well. I also don’t understand why the Priest cannot absolve us at Mass after The Penitential Act? That would be “loosing us of our sins”, after we confess publicly. Why must they be enumerated specifically? That is not in the scripture. Certainly our Lord Jesus Christ has the power to hear us all in our prayers, and know of our repentance, and has the power to forgive us directly! I am converting because I am married to a Catholic woman (for almost 20 years now), and have a daughter that is being raised Catholic, and I have attended Mass off an on for almost all of our marriage, and have not attended the LC at all, though I was confirmed in that denomination as a teenager. I wish us to be a united Catholic family, but the idea of going to confession, which is coming up if I am to be confirmed on Easter Vigil, is making me very uneasy.

Perhaps this will help:

Catholics are encouraged to go directly to the Lord for some sins–venial sins, those that do not break or threaten the relationship we have with God may be forgiven in a variety of ways: asking forgiveness from one injured by the sin, doing works of charity or piety, praying to God, making a Penitential Act or receiving the Eucharist. It is only the mortal (deadly) sins that require the sacrament of reconciliation, since they disrupt the relationship we have with God, and so require a more direct response from us to get back into a right relationship.

I use the analogy of a fight in a marriage. As long as the argument is fair and respects proper limits–no abuse, verbal or physical, for example–there are a variety of ways to get beyond it: saying you are sorry, offering to give a foot rub, doing some job the spouse has been nagging you for weeks, and so on. But if you storm out of the house for two days, or harm the other person, or similarly escalate the fight into a major disruption of the marriage, then more strenuous means are needed. Perhaps counseling, or a direct apology and discussion, or something. Offering a bouquet of flowers will not cut it.

Even then, the sacrament offers other advantages: the assurance that God has heard us and replies (through the Church’s chosen minister) that we are forgiven all those sins, the involvement not only of one person, but God and the whole communion of the Church (again, through the official minister), and the possibility of an objective hearer and human advice to correct what is wrong.

The need to confess number and type of serious sins is to help the priest gauge the seriousness of your habitual sins. It is a burden–but try to do the best you can. Nobody expects you do be able to remember and list every single sin over decades, but it can certainly help to spend some time with a good, detailed examen of conscience and make some notes for yourself.

 

[bmonk]

…

and besides, all sin is forgivable through Christ and His Sacrifice!

It is Christ who forgives. The priest in this case is acting officially, and so “takes the place of Christ.” Otherwise, where would the grace to forgive come from?

Do Priests ever say “No, you are not forgiven”? Not if you repent, they don’t.

I think I’d disagree: if you repent – but have no intention of amending your life – then that’s a lack of contrition that might warrant a priest to withhold absolution.

There are other cases to withhold absolution, albeit rare. For example, certain sins are reserved to the bishop, or even to the Pope, to grant absolution. (One such that comes to mind is assaulting the Pope.) When such a sin is confessed, the confessor priest must notify the proper authority of the confession, and only when he is given permission to grant absolution can he proceed.

Similarly, when suspensions or excommunication is involved, at times the higher authority in the Church must be consulted.

 

[bmonk]

Agreed. Yet, if he’s already given us a method though which forgiveness is to be gained, and that method itself is explicitly in Scripture, how do we have the right to trump it and say, “nah, no thanks, not for me. I’ll go do this other thing over here that You didn’t command, Jesus…”?

Yes. As I sometimes tell people, “just because God can do something in an extraordinary way is not a license to assume that God will do it in my case. Better to try the ordinary means–after all, they were given us for just that reason.”

 

[ckutac]

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, 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.

Protector, but we do know that laying on of hands DOES give different and special spiritual gifts. See Paul’s writings to Timothy:
1 Timothy 4:14
Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the elders laid their hands upon you.

And in 2 Timothy 5:22 he warns him about being hasty about laying on of hands.
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure.

And laying on of hands goes all the way back to the Old Testament, where the way that priestly succession was passed on was by laying on of hands.

And as you noted, confessing your sins to the priest goes all the way back to the Old Testament. In the Old Testament you had two different categories of Priests. The “regular” priests, and then one “High Priest”. You confessed your sins to the “regular” priests. But it was then the High Priests who made the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus Christ is our High Priest, who made the sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins, sacrificing himself on the cross. But, we still have to confess our sins to the priests.

 

[ckutac]

Show me anywhere outside John 20:23…where it is taught that priests have been given power to forgive sins, or anyone for that matter .
Thanks

Are you open to any other possibilities…In John 20:23 the words “have been forgiven” is the single Greek word aphiami. It is the perfect passive. The perfect tense is “I have been.” The pluperfect is “I had been.” The perfect tense designates an action that occurs in the past and continues into the present, i.e., “I have been eating.” The disciples were not doing the forgiving, but pronouncing the sins that “have been” forgiven by God

You want something our side of John 20:23 about having to confess your sins?

1 John 1:19:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

James 5:16
Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. (Notice that one another is in the context the versus before of calling a priest.

Proverbs 28:13
Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.

We also have:
John 20:21
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”

And how did the Father send Jesus with the power to forgive sins:
Matthew 9:2-6
And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” But Jesus, knowing[a] their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, take up your bed and go home.”

And we do know that this can be passed on see the addition of Matthias:
Acts 1:26 - And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

So the Apostles where able to add to there group, and you notice it said nothing about him having any less powers than the other 11.