Why should I confess my sins to a priest?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abba
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Abba said:
Interesting point.

““The Exorcist” was based on the 1971 novel of the same name by William Peter Blatty, which was in turn inspired by the exorcism case of Roland Doe, a pseudonym given to the victim by the Catholic Church. Most of the details surrounding Doe’s alleged possession and exorcisms come from a diary kept by the attending priest, Fr. Raymond Bishop, and from newspaper reports that came from an at the time anonymous source, which was later revealed to be the Doe family’s former pastor, the Reverend Luther Miles Schulze. Later, Thomas B. Allen wrote a book about the case, “Possessed: The True Story of an Exorcism” (published in 1993), which was based on two sources: Bishop’s diary and the testimony of Fr. Walter Halloran, one of the last surviving eyewitnesses of the events and a participant in the second leg of exorcisms.
Roland Doe was born circa 1936 into a German Lutheran Christian family, who lived in Cottage City, Maryland, during the 1940s. Roland was an only child and was particularly close with his Aunt Harriet, a spiritualist who introduced him to a Ouija board. When Harriet died in St. Louis when Roland was 13, it is assumed that the boy tried to contact her via the Ouija board.” movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/exorcist-real-life-story-behind-40-old-horror-225110306.html

“Reverend Luther Miles Schulze (born on 30 July 1906) was a Lutheran clergyman who served as the pastor of St. Stephen’s Evangelical Lutheran Church located in Washington, D.C. In a famous case, in January of 1949, one of Schulze’s parishioners named Robbie Mannheim, a thirteen-year-old Lutheran boy, living in Mt. Rainer, Maryland became involved in satanic possession after trying to contact his diseased aunt (with whom he had been very close) via an oujia board.” wikibin.org/articles/luther-miles-schulze.html

+++

Why can a priest do things no other man can do? Is their spiritual essence different? What and who made them different? Do you have proof for this claim?
Click to expand...
Only men who have been validly ordained can act in persona Christi. I honestly believe that only men being ordained has something to do with the fact that women overwhelmingly fall under demonic possession more than men.
 
Here is a timeline:

Here is an outline of a possible harmony of the Evangelists’ account concerning the principal events of Easter Sunday:

The holy women carrying the spices previously prepared start out for the sepulchre before dawn, and reach it after sunrise; they are anxious about the heavy stone, but know nothing of the official guard of the sepulchre (Matthew 28:1-3; Mark 16:1-3; Luke 24:1; John 20:1).
The angel frightened the guards by his brightness, put them to flight, rolled away the stone, and seated himself not upon (ep autou), but above (epano autou) the stone (Matthew 28:2-4).
Mary Magdalen, Mary the Mother of James, and Salome approach the sepulchre, and see the stone rolled back, whereupon Mary Magdalen immediately returns to inform the Apostles (Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1-2).
The other two holy women enter the sepulchre, find an angel seated in the vestibule, who shows them the empty sepulchre, announces the Resurrection, and commissions them to tell the disciples and Peter that they shall see Jesus in Galilee (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:5-7).
A second group of holy women, consisting of Joanna and her companions, arrive at the sepulchre, where they have probably agreed to meet the first group, enter the empty interior, and are admonished by two angels that Jesus has risen according to His prediction (Luke 24:10).
Not long after, Peter and John, who were notified by Mary Magdalen, arrive at the sepulchre and find the linen cloth in such a position as to exclude the supposition that the body was stolen; for they lay simply flat on the ground, showing that the sacred body had vanished out of them without touching them. When John notices this he believes (John 20:3-10).
Mary Magdalen returns to the sepulchre, sees first two angels within, and then Jesus Himself (John 20:11-16; Mark 16:9).
The two groups of pious women, who probably met on their return to the city, are favored with the sight of Christ arisen, who commissions them to tell His brethren that they will see him in Galilee (Matthew 28:8-10; Mark 16:8).
The holy women relate their experiences to the Apostles, but find no belief (Mark 16:10-11; Luke 24:9-11).
Jesus appears to the disciples, at Emmaus, and they return to Jerusalem; the Apostles appear to waver between doubt and belief (Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-35).
Christ appears to Peter, and therefore Peter and John firmly believe in the Resurrection (Luke 24:34; John 20:8).
**After the return of the disciples from Emmaus, Jesus appears to all the Apostles excepting Thomas (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25). **newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm
 
cguerber said:
The two gospels are talking about the same event when Jesus showed himself to them for the first time.
Click to expand...
Granted.

It’s not obvious given that each writer left out so much.

But, in Luke it says that while they were still talking about it, Jesus appeared. It is not necessarily the case that the others had remained.
 
KP3243 said:
Only men who have been validly ordained can act in persona Christi.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you need to explain this and the phrases; "validly ordained’ (what does that mean and valid according to who) in persona christi (what is this? are the priests like ambassadors of Jesus in much the same way as a president has ambassadors in foreign countries? or what?).
KP3243 said:
I honestly believe that only men being ordained has something to do with the fact that women overwhelmingly fall under demonic possession more than men.
Click to expand...
This is a dangerous statement. In the Dominican Republic the death toll of women rose immensely some years back. To the point that the UN sent some people to study the situation. Men were killing their women. In part I think it was due to a clash of two times/ eras and the changing culture. Men were living in what can be called an ‘old fashioned’ expectation of their women and women were beginning to embrace the new imported modern culture.

However, there were and still are some evangelical churches that teach that women are evil and it is the fault of women that we live in sin. They blame Eve for everything and encourage men to even tie their women at home not be it that they should go out and sin as it is the female tendency. These people go around with microphones in the cities of DR talking bad about women, accusing and condemning them.

So, given the gravity of the situation, I would like you to please justify your claim.
 
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.
 
The fall happen when Adam ate the forbidden fruit not when Eve ate it. Adam was responsible to tend to the garden and he knew there was evil in it and he should have never left Eve alone or made sure she understood what God meant because when she is talking to Satan she doesn’t get it right. We don’t know what would have happened if Adam had not eaten the fruit and begged God for forgiveness for not protecting Eve.
 
Lots of wonderful passages that help why confession to priest are discussed here. But if you look at recent church history there are 3 priests who were blessed with the ability to read souls about 100-140 years back.

St. John Bosco
St. John Vianney
St. Padre Pio

These saints are still perfectly in-corrupt and 2 priests were known for the sacrament of reconciliation more than anything else and spent around 12-15 hours a day hearing confessions - St John vianney and St Pio.
 
The_Reginator said:
The basic problem is with a lack of understanding, or a misunderstanding, of what the priesthood is.
As KP3243 said: “By receiving Holy Orders a priest can do things any other man cannot do.”
Through the laying on of hands and Apostolic Succession a priest, though a mere man, has been given the authority to ACT in the person of Christ.
Click to expand...
Yes. I must admit, the Catechism doesn’t explain profoundly and clearly some of the concepts involved. We can repeat in persona christi and sacred ordination a thousand times but this will not help people to understand. As we try to offer a clear explanation here I have noticed that other things people object to due to a lack of clear understanding come up too, e.g. Bible only idea, so ideas that are not clearly understood some how come together all tangled up with each other and need to be disentangled in order for people to understand the origin and value of the Sacrament of Reconciliation/Confession. One of the mayor points people do not clearly understand is how the Catholic priesthood originates with Jesus and is biblical and how and why the priests are different and are people who is the will of God that we confess our sins to.

At any rate, Pope Benedict XVI wrote some nice and explanations for the year of the priest. Below he connects the sacredness of ordination to Jesus:

"Jesus says: “For their sake I consecrate myself”. What does this mean? Is Jesus not himself “the Holy One of God”, as Peter acknowledged at that decisive moment in Capharnaum (cf. Jn 6:69)? How can he now consecrate – sanctify – himself?

To understand this, we need first to clarify what the Bible means by the words “holy” and “sanctify – consecrate”. “Holy” – this word describes above all God’s own nature, his completely unique, divine, way of being, one which is his alone. He alone is the true and authentic Holy One, in the original sense of the word. All other holiness derives from him, is a participation in his way of being. He is purest Light, Truth and untainted Good. To consecrate something or someone means, therefore, to give that thing or person to God as his property, to take it out of the context of what is ours and to insert it in his milieu, so that it no longer belongs to our affairs, but is totally of God. Consecration is thus a taking away from the world and a giving over to the living God. The thing or person no longer belongs to us, or even to itself, but is immersed in God. Such a giving up of something in order to give it over to God, we also call a sacrifice: this thing will no longer be my property, but his property. In the Old Testament, the giving over of a person to God, his “sanctification”, is identified with priestly ordination, and this also defines the essence of the priesthood: it is a transfer of ownership, a being taken out of the world and given to God. We can now see the two directions which belong to the process of sanctification-consecration. It is a departure from the milieux of worldly life – a “being set apart” for God. But for this very reason it is not a segregation. Rather, being given over to God means being charged to represent others. The priest is removed from worldly bonds and given over to God, and precisely in this way, starting with God, he must be available for others, for everyone. When Jesus says: “I consecrate myself”, he makes himself both priest and victim. Bultmann was right to translate the phrase: “I consecrate myself” by “I sacrifice myself”. Do we now see what happens when Jesus says: “I consecrate myself for them”? This is the priestly act by which Jesus – the Man Jesus, who is one with the Son of God – gives himself over to the Father for us. It is the expression of the fact that he is both priest and victim. I consecrate myself – I sacrifice myself: this unfathomable word, which gives us a glimpse deep into the heart of Jesus Christ, should be the object of constantly renewed reflection. It contains the whole mystery of our redemption. It also contains the origins of the priesthood in the Church, of our priesthood." vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090409_messa-crismale_en.html
 
Pope Benedict XVI also tried to explain what is meant by in persona christi:

In order to understand what it means for the priest to act in persona Christi Capitis in the person of Christ the Head and to realize what consequences derive from the duty of representing the Lord, especially in the exercise of these three offices, it is necessary first of all to explain what “representation” means. The priest represents Christ. What is implied by “representing” someone? In ordinary language it usually means being delegated by someone to be present in his place, to speak and act in his stead because the person he represents is absent from the practical action. Let us ask ourselves: does the priest represent the Lord in this way? The answer is no, because in the Church Christ is never absent, the Church is his living Body and he is the Head of the Church, present and active within her. Christ is never absent, on the contrary he is present in a way that is untrammelled by space and time through the event of the Resurrection that we contemplate in a special way in this Easter Season.

Therefore the priest, who acts in persona Christi Capitis and representing the Lord, never acts in the name of someone who is absent but, rather, in the very Person of the Risen Christ, who makes himself present with his truly effective action. He really acts today and brings about what the priest would be incapable of: the consecration of the wine and the bread so that they may really be the Lord’s presence, the absolution of sins. The Lord makes his own action present in the person who carries out these gestures. These three duties of the priest which Tradition has identified in the Lord’s different words about mission: teaching, sanctifying and governing in their difference and in their deep unity are a specification of this effective representation. In fact, they are the three actions of the Risen Christ, the same that he teaches today, in the Church and in the world. Thereby he creates faith, gathers together his people, creates the presence of truth and really builds the communion of the universal Church; and sanctifies and guides.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20100414_en.html
 
KP3243 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can you please provide evidence of your statements?
 
One thing that people tend to forget in these discussions is that confession and absolution are not just about forgiveness and mercy but they are also a juridical act of the Church that is about justice.
 
This is a good point you make here, choliks. :yup:

One of the obstacles of coming to understand the value of the Sacrament of Confession, finding God and even in growing and maturing in our faith is being obstinate. If we approach our learning with an attitude of my way or the high way - :tsktsk: - well, we have limited ourselves from the start.

We need to seek understanding and God with the disposition of a child and with an open mind and heart.
 
Folks, please help respond to CG’s objection:
cguerber said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Abba said:
Folks, please help respond to CG’s objection:
Click to expand...
Sorry Abba, I haven’t really been following the conversation closely, so please forgive my presumptions. Lapide’s Commentary seems to back CG to some extent, but admits a problem with the number of Apostles. I take 11 to mean the 12 minus Judas; Lapide thinks it should be 10 (minus Judas and Thomas). But I think it is difficult to empirically prove either case (same event or not) from the text alone. Either way, it is an aside argument to the greater question of whether a priest is needed. What is clear, is that authority was given. There would have been no reason for Jesus to give authority to any group or persons if each individual person had authority through God to absolve their own sins,. If each person has the same authority (to bind/loose sin on their own behalf), then there is no authority at all, it doesn’t exist, which would completely negate Jesus’ words.

In the passages (Luke and John) that you have been discussing, there are two references that I believe are crucial lessons for all of us. Twice, there are references to “opening their understanding that they might understand the scriptures”; once in the Emmaus story and once in Jerusalem. Now, these disciples were not only faithful Jews but hand-picked by Jesus Christ for His Church. They walked with him, learned from him, and were blessed by them and yet even just prior to the ascension, even with all their noteworthy privilege, they still did not have full understanding of the scriptures. These words should serve to foster humility in us and a desire to be taught rather than any misguided notion of self authority of such an important matter as our sin. In every stage of life, we are subject to some form of earthly authority (parents, spouse, law enforcement, government, etc.) to govern our temporal lives. But when it comes to our eternal salvation, who should believe that they alone are the ultimate form of earthly authority and surety of the loosing of their own sins?

I am going to post an excerpt of Lapide for v.23 on the next post. I cut the council stuff but I think it is still too long. Hope someone finds it helpful.

(the preceding is not endorsed by an authority beyond myself, which means none at all:D)
 
—Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. Calvin twists and turns this to make it mean the preaching of the Gospel, namely, that they to whom ye preach the Gospel, if they believe it, will have their sins forgiven by their mere belief. But every one sees that this explanation is strained, forced, foolish, and ridiculous. For in this way it would not be the Apostles, but believers themselves who would themselves remit their own sins, which is absurd. For no one is judge in his own case, or stands higher than himself, so as to remit his own sins. (2.) These two things, viz., preaching the Gospel and remitting sins, are clearly dissimilar and distinct, the one being the work of an Apostle in preaching, the other the judicial act of a judge. (3.) The Gospel must be preached to all: and consequently this absolution of Calvin’s must be given even to all the wicked. But Christ wishes not that all sins should be remitted, but orders that some should be retained, and that the Apostles and their successors should be judges in this matter. (4.) Christ had already given the Apostles power to preach (Luke x. 1), and commanded them to preach to every creature. Why then should He repeat all this in such obscure and unintelligible words?

I say therefore, it is a matter of faith to understand this passage of the sacrament of penance, wherein the priest, as judge, remits not only the punishment but also the guilt of penitents who accuse themselves in confession. This is clear from the words themselves, all of which signify that a judicial power of remitting or retaining sins was here given to the Apostles as judges in the tribunal of conscience. For so all the Fathers and the whole Church in every age understood the words.

Moreover, Christ by here instituting the tribunal of Penance, sanctioned, in this very way, Sacramental Confession, and enjoins it by Divine right. For sins cannot be remitted in this tribunal unless they are known, nor can they be known, unless they are confessed, for they are frequently secret; nay more, hidden in the mind. It is therefore necessary that the penitent should act as his own accuser, and should be at the same time a criminal, an accuser, and a witness against himself, and should humbly ask pardon of the priest, as his judge, for the sins whereof he accuses himself, and for which he is penitent. But if the priest sees that he is truly penitent, he will pronounce the sentence of absolution, and will, in the Name of Christ, as His Vicar, pardon all his sins. For Christ ratifies the sentence of His priest, and pardons everything which His priest pardons, and what he retains, Christ also retains. For Christ in the Gospel often bids men to repent of their sins. But this they should do in the way which Christ instituted, that is, by submitting to the Sacrament of Penance, that is, by confessing their sins to the priest, and asking him for absolution.

**And whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. **
This does not signify merely a refusal of absolution, but positive power. For it means, Those whom ye count unworthy of absolution, on account of their unfitness, whom ye reject, and consider guilty of sin, and deserving of hell, God will judge in like manner, who alone primarily and by His own authority forgives or retains sins. It belongs to God alone to condemn an offence against Himself. But in this matter He appoints priests to be as it were His Vicars. See Matt. xviii. 18. If a priest sees that a penitent has not serious sorrow for his sins, or no serious purpose of amendment, as refusing, e.g., to give up his concubine, or other occasions of sin, or who will not restore the good name or the wealth which he has stolen from his neighbour, the priest ought to refuse such a one absolution, to judge that he is unfit for absolution, and that he must abide in his sin, and incur the guilt of hell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top