Why should I confess my sins to a priest?

[Gorgias]

Oneofthewomen:

Easiest answer- because it IS Jesus you are confessing to, NOT to the priest.

tawny:

The priest is the representative of Jesus.

crochet lady:

“persona Christi” would be suggesting that the priest is equal to the Godhead.

No, that’s not quite correct. The authority rests with Jesus – after all, He is God. However, he gave his proxy to the apostles to forgive sins – that is, the authority rests with Jesus, but the action lies with the priest. The priest doesn’t hold himself up as ‘equal to Christ’, and he doesn’t ‘represent’ Christ (as a delegate might, for an absent official); he has been given authority by Christ, to do what Christ wants to do for you today! You’re confessing to the priest, alright; and it’s the priest who is saying “I absolve you” – but that’s only because Jesus expressly permitted it (and because Peter extended the permission to the successors of the apostles and their vicars).

Oneofthewomen:

when a priest [is]… absolving sins he is doing it in persona Christi, or “as the Person, Christ”.

There’s a subtle distinction here: when a priest absolves from sins, he’s doing it by virtue of his ordination to the priesthood. The absolution is a grant of authority given by Christ to his apostles, whom He made priests right there in John 20! Think of it this way: when you tell your babysitter to make the kids go to bed at 8, and they ask to stay up to watch a movie and she says ‘no’… is it you telling the kids ‘no’—or is it the babysitter telling them ‘no’, by virtue of your authority?

Abba:

Furthermore, what nature of the Sacrament of Holy Orders? Where is that in the Bible?

Where is it in the Bible that everything must be in the Bible? In fact, the Bible says exactly the opposite: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)

 

[Gorgias]

Abba:

However, how can we derive from that, that almost 2,000 years later we are to confess to a man called a priest? Wasn’t it to the apostles that He gave the Holy Spirit and the authority to forgive sins?

That’s an important point that you raise! Here’s the thing: Jesus’ earthly ministry is chock full of healings; in almost every case, a healing is accompanied by a forgiveness of sins. It was so critically important to Jesus’ ministry that sins must be forgiven that, the very first thing he does, when he first appears to the Apostles following his resurrection, he gives them the authority to forgive sins!

Now, answer me this: if it’s so critically important that Jesus forgives sins, and so critically important that the Apostles forgive sins once Jesus is no longer on the earth in order that sinners may hear “your sins are forgiven you”… why does it make any sense at all to think that, once the apostles die, there’s no longer any need for forgiveness of sins, and no longer any desire on Jesus’ part to have people hear – through Christ’s authority – that their sins are forgiven? That makes no sense at all…

It is important to pause here and note that in John 21-23 Jesus clearly gives the authority to a group of ‘men’ to forgive sins. … The question that remains, for millions of people, however, is: how do you jump from that moment in time to priests in our time having the same authority?

Right: if the only authority given to the apostles was to forgive sins, then that would be a huge stumbling block. Yet, it isn’t the only authority! Jesus gave Peter the authority to bind and loose – and, in the understanding of the Church, that authority was exercised in the passing on of that proxy to those who were the successors of the Apostles. In Acts 1 – among the first things that Peter did as an exercise of that authority! – he ensured that there was to be a succession of apostles. Matthias, then, is the first apostolic successor!

 

[Abba]

Sousley, Gorgia and all who are participating in this thread; thank you kindly for taking the time to respond to the questions posed.

The question: why should I confess to a priest(?), gets immediately complicated as it raises a bunch of other questions that need to be answered and concepts that need to be clearly explained, such as:

1. The validity of the priesthood,
2. The validity of ordination or how is it that a priest is not like any other man,
3. Bible only idea,
4. In persona christi (capitis)
5. fill in the others…

 

[Faustinas_frien]

Easiest answer- because it IS Jesus you are confessing to, NOT to the priest.

It has to do with the nature of the Sacrament of Holy Orders- when a priest in confecting the Eucharist or absolving sins he is doing it in persona Christi, or “as the Person, Christ”.

Good answer, plus…with a priest,
How would you know what your penance is?
How would you know you were absolved of your sins?

 

[Gorgias]

The question: why should I confess to a priest(?), gets immediately complicated as it raises a bunch of other questions that need to be answered

With all due respect, I disagree. The question asks “… instead of going to God directly?” as the alternative to ‘confession to a priest.’ It’s this angle that can be effectively refuted, without even requiring us to get into the more involved questions you raise.

The question, as you’ve asked it, leads us to ask the question “does God ever tell us that the way that sins are forgiven is ‘by going to God directly’?” The answer to this question is clearly ‘no’, and we can point to Scriptural citations to prove this answer correct! If we look to the prescriptions of the Mosaic covenant, does God tell the Israelites that forgiveness comes through simple prayer to the Lord? Of course not! Rather, forgiveness happens through temple sacrifice and the action of the priest! As an example, see Lev 4:31 – it’s through the sacrifice made by the priest that atonement of sins was achieved.

But, even if the OT witness is ‘atonement through priestly intervention’, maybe the Gospel message is ‘go directly to God’? But no, that’s not what we see there, either: Jesus never says “I’ve healed you; now go pray to God for the forgiveness of your sins!” Rather, Jesus forgives them directly; in fact, we can see that it’s a critical part of his ministry that he forgives sins and that the people he heals hear that their sins are forgiven directly from his voice. And, of course, as already mentioned, John 20:20-22 shows us that this ministry of forgiveness is so important that it’s the first thing that Jesus mentions when he makes his first post-resurrection appearance to the apostles.

So, given that “go directly to God for forgiveness” never appears in the Bible, and given that exactly the opposite – forgiveness through the intervention of priests, whether through the Word of God in the Mosaic Covenant or the direct command of Jesus – is exactly how God tells us that we are forgiven, then we have no choice but to conclude that “go directly to God” an unscriptural, unsupported innovation of man in conflict with God’s will.

 

[Gorgias]

Folks, please help respond to CG’s objection:

cguerber:

One problem with using John 20:19-31 is that there were more than just the apostles present when Jesus spoke those words. Please review Luke 24:33-36 etc. Actually, start at the beginning of Luke 24 and you can clearly tell that this is the same event as John 20. but that there were more than just the apostles present.

It’s certainly an intriguing claim, but I don’t think that it necessarily stands up. Let’s review the two passages:

In Luke, there is exactly one appearance in Jerusalem prior to the ascension. At the conclusion of this appearance (Lk 24:33-49), Jesus “then led them as far as Bethany… [and] he parted from them and was taken up to heaven.” (Lk 50-51) However, in John, we see multiple appearances to the disciples: the appearance “on the evening of that first day of the week” (John 20:19ff), the appearance “a week later” (John 20:26), the appearance to the seven (John 21) and potentially, other post-resurrection appearances in which “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of [his] disciples” (John 20:30).

So, how do we harmonize these appearances? The appearance of John 20:19ff happens on the “evening of the first day of the week” (on Easter Sunday), as does the appearance in Luke 24. However, in the appearance of John 20:19ff, we don’t see any physical interaction with the disciples, but we do see it in the subsequent appearance a week later. The appearance in Luke 24 includes the same description of physical interaction with the Lord (“touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones” (Lk 24:39)) as does the 2nd appearance in John (“put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side” (John 20:27)). Moreover, the references to the disciples vary: the first appearance in John is “where the disciples were” (John 20:19), but “one of the twelve… Thomas… was not with them when Jesus came” (John 20:24). Now, John uses the term ‘disciples’ in a particular way: we never see John calling the apostles ‘apostles’, but rather only ‘disciples’ or ‘the Twelve’. Luke, by contrast, uses the term ‘Twelve’ and ‘apostle’ to refer to a particular group, but also calls them ‘disciples’ on many occasions (Luke 9 is a morass of conflicting designations, as an example!). So, on the face of it, there are already sufficient reasons to understand the designation of ‘disciple’ as problematic in terms of understanding to whom the evangelist is referring. Yet, in Luke 24, we see “the eleven and those with them” (Lk 24:33). Who are these other people? The Eleven and “some women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers” of Acts 1:13-14? Perhaps it’s the “brothers… a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place” of Acts 1:15?

Clearly, it’s difficult to reach a simple conclusion. Yet, must we make unwarranted assumptions about the people to whom Jesus said, “receive the Holy Spirit… whose sins you forgive are forgiven them.” Is it the case that, when Jesus spoke in a crowd of many people, he was necessarily speaking to all of them? Of course not! The stories of Jesus’ are rife with examples of the way he would speak to some people present but not others – the parables, the discussions aimed at Pharisees and scribes but not his disciples, etc! So, even if we want to say that there were more than apostles present, would we necessarily be forced by the Scriptural text to presume that Jesus was speaking to everyone present? Of course not! (It stands to reason: if I’m standing in a room with my wife and a bunch of others, and I say, “I love you” and she says “I want to have your baby”, would we necessarily presume that I’m talking to the assembled crowd? That she is, too? Of course not! So, why would we presume that this is what is going on here in the Scriptures, especially since the witness of the early Church is that they themselves didn’t reach this conclusion?!?)

So, I would say that on both counts – because there are discrepancies which might suggest that the Lucan appearance corresponds with the second Johannine appearance, and because the presence of ‘others’ does not imply that Jesus’ words were directed to all – we must not simply conclude that the mandate to the disciples to forgive sins was directed to others than those to whom the Church understood it to be directed: toward the apostles and their successors!

 

[Abba]

It is truth that overwhelmingly more women than men have demonic possession and receive exorcism. It puzzles the Church the only thing the Vatican Exorcist can come up with that it has to do with Eve being tempted in the Garden not Adam and women in general are more likely to follow the occult. That shouldn’t ever translate to people as a command to kill women or that women are bad, the woman was also who brought our salvation into this world and women are powerful channels of change especially when the family gets attacked.

Hello KP3243,

We are a little off topic here, but, I want to address your comment.

The link you provided does not substantiate your claim. The link is simply to an interview with Father Amorph where he says that women are more prone to possession. Where does he mentions anything about it having to do with Eve? Where does the Church say that in general women are more prone to follow the occult?

I am more of the understanding that women are more intuitive and psychic and spiritual than men. In much the same way that they are more social and nurturing. So that it is from a positive aspect of femininity that they are spiritually attacked. They are prone to being more conscious and aware of the spiritual than men and in being so, they are attacked.

But, the origin is not in a negative evil aspect of women, much to the contrary, it is because women are more spiritually conscious than men. Note how there are usually more women in the churches than men, more women members of some rosary prayer group, more women attending adoration, etc… Women are more likely to start a spiritual warfare with demons and Satan than men, as women would be more spiritually aware over all of their presence and so are attacked more than men.

It was God that made women and He most certainly did not make junk nor made women evil. Women are good. The mother of Jesus, who carried Jesus in her womb was a women and she was Immaculately Conceived. It was God that our blessed mother carried in her womb for nine months. Imagine - God - permitting Himself to be born of woman. If women are good enough for God than they must be pretty good.

God love women and men and mothers, well, in my book they are a third species. A priest I once knew once said that it is not all women that give birth that become mothers and not all mothers have given birth. I myself have said for many years that God created a third specie as there are women who transform into mothers.

There is an exorcist who notes:

According to a certified Filipino exorcist, women are prone to demonic possession because they are generally more “psychic and intuitive” than men. “They are more open to the spiritual world,” said Fr. Jose Francisco Syquia, a professor of spiritual theology at the San Carlos Seminary and one of the few “designated” exorcists in the local Catholic hierarchy,” as quoted by The Inquirer News Service (Nov. 1, 2005). Fr. Syquia has worked with Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican’s Chief Exorcist.wtchdktr.livejournal.com/2506.html

Of course, the spiritual world does not only include Satan and his demons but our Triune God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and the angels and saints etc…

Peace

 

[Trebor135]

With all due respect, I disagree. The question asks “… instead of going to God directly?” as the alternative to ‘confession to a priest.’ It’s this angle that can be effectively refuted, without even requiring us to get into the more involved questions you raise.

The question, as you’ve asked it, leads us to ask the question “does God ever tell us that the way that sins are forgiven is ‘by going to God directly’?” The answer to this question is clearly ‘no’, and we can point to Scriptural citations to prove this answer correct! If we look to the prescriptions of the Mosaic covenant, does God tell the Israelites that forgiveness comes through simple prayer to the Lord? Of course not! Rather, forgiveness happens through temple sacrifice and the action of the priest! As an example, see Lev 4:31 – it’s through the sacrifice made by the priest that atonement of sins was achieved.

But, even if the OT witness is ‘atonement through priestly intervention’, maybe the Gospel message is ‘go directly to God’? But no, that’s not what we see there, either: Jesus never says “I’ve healed you; now go pray to God for the forgiveness of your sins!” Rather, Jesus forgives them directly; in fact, we can see that it’s a critical part of his ministry that he forgives sins and that the people he heals hear that their sins are forgiven directly from his voice. And, of course, as already mentioned, John 20:20-22 shows us that this ministry of forgiveness is so important that it’s the first thing that Jesus mentions when he makes his first post-resurrection appearance to the apostles.

So, given that “go directly to God for forgiveness” never appears in the Bible, and given that exactly the opposite – forgiveness through the intervention of priests, whether through the Word of God in the Mosaic Covenant or the direct command of Jesus – is exactly how God tells us that we are forgiven, then we have no choice but to conclude that “go directly to God” an unscriptural, unsupported innovation of man in conflict with God’s will.

You take an interesting approach, one that has occurred to me before.

A possible counter-argument that could be made, however, is from Acts chapter eight:

[18] Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money,
[19] saying, “Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
[20] But Peter said to him, “Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!
[21] You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.
[22] Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.
[23] For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.”
[24] And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”

And another from 1 John chapter one:

[9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
[10] If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

 

[Abba]

A possible counter-argument that could be made, however, is from Acts chapter eight:

[18] Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money,
[19] saying, “Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
[20] But Peter said to him, “Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!
[21] You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.
[22] Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.
[23] For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.”
[24] And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”

I understand Peter to be presenting here the understanding that we need to repent and acknowledge our sins in order to be forgiven. Peter is asking Simon to pray that he may come to repentance so he can be forgiven. A modern day example of this case is someone I know who went to Confession but, the person did not receive absolution as the priest cannot judge. The priest if the person states their sins and is truly repentant, *can *forgive sins. When the person does not acknowledge their sins the priest cannot give absolution.

If I, for instance, go to the Sacrament of Confession and tell the priest a story of how I was in a war zone and turned in some people to the enemy camp to save my neck and they were all later killed by the enemies. However, that I AM NOT SURE that I am truly responsible for their deaths nor how guilty I would truly be given the circumstances. The priest will not give absolution and will probably say that he cannot judge and that it will be Jesus who will judge.

As a matter of fact, perhaps in more modern language, I could see a priest stating similarly as Peter did to Simon to the person I described above. The person is indeed, blinded by bitterness and iniquity. Sins blind us and prevent us from recognizing our own sins. Peter uses the word ‘bitterness’, that’s a loaded word which reveals non-repentance. Simon had not repented from his heart and Peter having been empowered with the Holy Spirit was able to perceive this.

Peter does say:

“Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.”

In order to be forgiven he needs to repent, and in order to repent he needs to overcome his bitterness and iniquity and so Peter follows with:

“For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.”

What sincere repentance can there be in a person who is in the bond of iniquity and in the gall of bitterness? None. That’s why he needs to pray so that he can come to repentance, and finally be forgiven by a priest. Simon asked Peter to pray for him so that those awful things would not happen. He just got caught, he had not repented - yet. Simon was blinded by sins and bitterness and he needed to pray to come to repentance and then, his sins could be forgiven.

And another from 1 John chapter one:

[9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
[10] If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

I don’t see how this would pose a problem to understand that it is Jesus’s will that we confess to a priest and it is through priests that Jesus in this earth forgive us our sins.

I would also note that it is good to read all of John 20 and not just the little section when Jesus said: “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” And take it out of context and jump to the idea that what Jesus said to the disciple may not have necessarily been meant exclusively for them, but instead to every human being. If we read the whole of John 20, it is evident that Jesus was directing Himself to the apostles. He did not say this in the front stairway of the temple, nor to a the hundreds who would gather, but he went in the privacy of the room where the disciples were and He addressed them personally.

The most glorious news for those who do not know, is that truly our sins are indeed forgiven us **if **we have repented at the sacrament of reconciliation. It’s almost frustrating being on the other side and knowing that this is true and trying to communicate this truth to others. If it could be as simple as to say just go and receive the sacrament and you will experience this truth spiritually and then you yourself will know that it is true and not because someone else told you.

Peace

 

[The_Reginator]

The most glorious news for those who do not know, is that truly our sins are indeed forgiven us **if **we have repented at the sacrament of reconciliation. It’s almost frustrating being on the other side and knowing that this is true and trying to communicate this truth to others. If it could be as simple as to say just go and receive the sacrament and you will experience this truth spiritually and then you yourself will know that it is true and not because someone else told you.

 

[Gorgias]

A possible counter-argument that could be made, however, is from Acts chapter eight:

I’m not certain that this works well as a counter-argument:

Peter said to him, “Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.”

[24] And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”

So, Peter – the priest – calls upon Simon to repent and pray that God forgives him. What does Simon do? Does he say, “Yep, that sounds about right! I’m going to go home now, and in the privacy of my personal prayer, I’m going to go straight to God for forgiveness!”…? No, not at all! Rather, he asks Peter, so that Peter might offer a prayer that the Lord would accept! Now, if we look at the sacrament of reconciliation – especially in terms of its historical development – this is exactly how the sacrament works! The confessor calls the penitent to repentance, the penitent repents and prays to God for forgiveness (the Act of Contrition, after all, starts “Oh my God, I am heartily sorry…”!), and finally – having witnessed the penitent’s contrition – the priest absolves him of his sins. Now… we don’t see the absolution in this passage, but what we do see doesn’t at all conflict with our understanding of the sacrament!

And another from 1 John chapter one:

[9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

This, too, does not stand at odds with the sacrament. If we confess, then God forgives us. The means by which he forgives is the sacrament, but the forgiveness of sins comes from God, even if it’s granted by a priest! The fact that it’s the agency of the priest through which the forgiveness happens neither contradicts 1 John nor is nullified by it…!

 

[Abba]

Hello Gorgias and Trebor135,

I apologize for jumping in, unannounced. I should have at least acknowledge that I recognize your comment was direct to Gorgias, and just said that I wanted to comment. Sorry, didn’t mean to be rude, I could have made a smoother entrance.

I’m not certain that this works well as a counter-argument:

So, Peter – the priest – calls upon Simon to repent and pray that God forgives him. What does Simon do? Does he say, “Yep, that sounds about right! I’m going to go home now, and in the privacy of my personal prayer, I’m going to go straight to God for forgiveness!”…? No, not at all! Rather, he asks Peter, so that Peter might offer a prayer that the Lord would accept! Now, if we look at the sacrament of reconciliation – especially in terms of its historical development – this is exactly how the sacrament works! The confessor calls the penitent to repentance, the penitent repents and prays to God for forgiveness (the Act of Contrition, after all, starts “Oh my God, I am heartily sorry…”!), and finally – having witnessed the penitent’s contrition – the priest absolves him of his sins. Now… we don’t see the absolution in this passage, but what we do see doesn’t at all conflict with our understanding of the sacrament!

I don’t see Peter being ready at all to forgive Simon here. I don’t think Simon is ready at all. I don’t see how the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation can be seen in the interaction of Peter with Simon except to note that Simon has not repented and needs to pray to come to repentance.

I searched to find if their is a quote in the Bible noting that mediums, sorcerers, witches etc… charged for their services, but I did not find any. I even read this whole long article which provides all the quotes in the Bible regarding sorcerers, etc… bibleplus.org/witchcraft/witchcraft.htm , but there is nothing noting that they were financially compensated for their services. Although I did not find anything in the Bible it is my understand that they were compensated. To sorcerers, witches, etc…, it is like a sacred thing that they need to be compensated. Even if it is for a small amount, so be it, but many will not offer their services for free. It is to those who understand their powers to come from ‘spirits’, Satan or demons a sin against them or a serious offense. That if done, they fear the lose of their powers. So, going back to Simon, I think Simon made a good living from his sorcery and he enjoyed the glory of being considered as one who had the Great power of God.

Then come the apostles, and yes, Simon converted, but it’s hard to leave our old sinful ways and we can fall under temptation. This is what I see happening to Simon. Simon lost his way of life and the glory that came with it. No more hustling for Simon. Then he learns about the power of the Holy Spirit - which is that Great power of God people thought actually all that time that Simon had. So, Simon sees an opportunity to get all that he has lost back, and he tries in his old way (hustler, savvy worldly business man) to purchase the power knowing that with it he will get all his money back and much more along with regaining his lost prestige (pride). This is why he needs to pray, because there is still bitterness in Simon which will prevent him from truly repenting for what he has tried to do. Peter sees this in his soul. This means, that two weeks later, in a similar situation let’s say, Simon would fall again, because he has not let go of his old ways yet. This is why I think he needs to pray and so for him to be able to come to true, genuine repentance and truly acknowledge and recognize that he has sinned and why.

I also wonder, about the dilemma Simon is in after trying to finagle with the Holy Spirit. Mathew 12:31 comes to mind. I wonder if Peter was not only thinking true repentance but also the dilemma of the offense against the Holy Spirit “…and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.”

30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

In conclusion, I don’t see part of the Sacrament of Reconciliation between Peter and Simon. What I see is Peter advising Simon to pray so that his soul is healed (bitterness) and so he could come to to true repentance.

Peace