Confessing your sins to a priest thinking that he can forgive you of your sins, may seem to some people an outrage!
Although Us Catholics have our beliefs from the Scriptures.
Why do Catholics confess their sins to priests? What makes them think that
priests can absolve them of the guilt of their sins? Why don't they confess their sins directly to God as Protestants do?
Catholics confess their sins to priests because-- as it is clearly stated in Sacred Scripture--God in the Person of Jesus Christ authorized the priests of His Church to hear confessions and empowered them to forgive sins in His Name. To the Apostles, the first priests of His Church, Christ said: ``Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.... Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.'' (John 20:21-23). Then again: ``Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.'' (Matt. 18:18). In other words, Catholics confess their sins to priests because priests are God's duly authorized agents in the world, representing Him in all matters pertaining to the ways and means of attaining eternal salvation. When Catholics confess their sins to a priest they are, in reality, confessing their sins to God, for God hears their confessions and it is He who, in the final analysis, does the forgiving. If their confessions are not sincere, their sins are not forgiven.
Furthermore, Catholics do confess their sins directly to God as Protestants do: Catholics are taught to make an act of contrition at least every night before retiring, to ask God to forgive them their sins of that day. Catholics are also taught to say this same prayer of contrition if they should have the misfortune to commit a serious sin (called a ``mortal sin'' by Catholics).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granting that priests do have the power to forgive sins in the name of God, what advantage does confessing one's sins to a priest have over confessing directly to God in private prayer?
Catholics see several advantages in confessing their sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance. First, there is the Church's guarantee of forgiveness, which private confessions do not provide; secondly, there is the sacramental grace which private confessions do not provide; and thirdly, there is the expert spiritual counseling which private confessions do not provide. With the Apostles, Catholics recognize that the Church is, in a mysterious way, the Body of Christ still living in the world (Col. 1:18); therefore they recognize that God will receive their pleas for mercy and forgiveness with far greater compassion if their pleas are voiced within the Church, in union with the Mystical Body of His Divine Son, than if they are voiced privately, independent of the Mystical Body of His Divine Son.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do Catholics confess all the sordid details of their sins to the priest?
No, Catholics are instructed not to confess the sordid details of their sins, because it would serve no useful purpose. All that is required of the penitent is the number and classification of sins committed, as well as a sincere contrition for having sinned, a promise to make restitution if the sin has harmed others, a firm resolve to avoid future sins and the occasions of sin, and the carrying out of the penance assigned by the priest (usually the praying of a few prayers). Actually, there are fewer intimacies revealed to the priest in the confessional than are usually revealed to one's doctor, lawyer, or psychiatrist; hence the Sacrament of Penance is not the embarrassing experience many non-Catholics imagine it is. Rather, it is a wonderful relieving experience, for it is through this sacrament that sins committed after Baptism are washed away by the blood of Christ and the sinner becomes once again reconciled with God.
Although most of you may not believe the apparations of Mother Mary, some may think upon them as demonic.
But the Catholic Church is also aware of this situation, and does study them before approving them.
The Messages of Bayside was to a Mother of 5, called Veronica Lueken who recieved visitations from the Saints, Mother Mary and Lord Jesus himself!
Even Pope John Paul II himself visited the site when it was happening.
Although you may not believe them one of the messages states;
"A true legally-ordained priest is far superior than any man, as he
represents Me in the Godhead." - Jesus, May 23, 1979
Link: http://www.tldm.org/News11/CallNoManFather.htm
Website Of Messages of Bayside; www.tldm.org
Catholic Apologetics - Joshua[/b]
Why do Catholics confess their Sins to a Priest?
Moderator: Moderators
-
anotheratheisthere
- Banned
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:00 am
- Location: New York
Post #11
lol. Riight. And it's been 30 years since Roman Polanski anally raped a minor while she was begging him to stop. Let bygones be bygones! What's a few million murders! The Church is a force for good, come on!McCulloch wrote:That's not fair. They have not done that in quite a while. I don't think that they have sanctioned the burning of a heretic since 1721. And it appears as if they only started around 1300. That's not too bad for an infallible organization led by the Holy Spirit. It only took them 421 years to figure out that burning heretics at the stake is a no-no.anotheratheisthere wrote: At least people who believe in Santa don't burn non-believers at the stake.
c.f. List of people burned as heretics
I'm obviously being sarcastic, and I'm about as certain as one can be when discussing religion that you're sarcastic too.
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20796
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 211 times
- Been thanked: 360 times
- Contact:
Post #12
Moderator formal warning:anotheratheisthere wrote: lol. Riight. And it's been 30 years since Roman Polanski anally raped a minor while she was begging him to stop. Let bygones be bygones! What's a few million murders! The Church is a force for good, come on!
I'm obviously being sarcastic, and I'm about as certain as one can be when discussing religion that you're sarcastic too.
This type of sarcasm is not appropriate here on this forum. Please abide by the rules and familiarize yourself with the consequences of breaking the rules.
-
anotheratheisthere
- Banned
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:00 am
- Location: New York
Post #13
Sorry sorry sorry. I knew it was wrong of me to say that. I'll try to control my sarcastic impulses.otseng wrote:Moderator formal warning:anotheratheisthere wrote: lol. Riight. And it's been 30 years since Roman Polanski anally raped a minor while she was begging him to stop. Let bygones be bygones! What's a few million murders! The Church is a force for good, come on!
I'm obviously being sarcastic, and I'm about as certain as one can be when discussing religion that you're sarcastic too.
This type of sarcasm is not appropriate here on this forum. Please abide by the rules and familiarize yourself with the consequences of breaking the rules.
As long as you're enforcing the rules, could you please enforce rule number 5 a little more? I feel that there is a double standard.
Please look at my post "The rule 5 paradox". Somebody responded by making the argument that "I don't know anything about biology, therefore Mary was a virgin". That's clearly a violation of Rule 5, I'd say.
Again, sorry for being sarcastic in my earlier post, I could totally have made that same point without being inflammatory, it's just a force of habit thing, but I promise I will not do it anymore. And I'm also aware that it was borderline R rated, which is also not allowed.... sry
Post #14
LifeSiteNews.com reported on September 29, 2009:
The sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in the US and abroad was a matter of homosexuals preying on adolescent boys, not one of pedophilia, said the Vatican's representative at the UN in Geneva, Switzerland. It is "more correct," said Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males, than pedophilia, in relation to the scandals.
"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90 per cent belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17," said Tomasi. His statement is backed up by a report commissioned by the US bishops that found that in the overwhelming majority of cases the clergy involved were homosexuals, with 81 percent of victims being adolescent males.
Tomasi also responded to criticisms, saying that while the Catholic Church has been "busy cleaning its own house, it would be good if other institutions and authorities, where the major part of abuses are reported, could do the same and inform the media about it." According to information from various sources, the problem of sexual abuse of minors in religious organizations is widespread among Protestant churches and Jewish communities.
The statement comes in the wake of accusations at the UN Human Rights Council, which published a written statement by a secularist group, the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), alleging that the Vatican was responsible for the proliferation of sexual abuse cases involving Catholic priests. The IHEU accused the Church of a failure to honor obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
"The Holy See has been heavily implicated for decades in covering up cases of child abuse carried our by its clergy and religious orders, in obstructing justice, and in failing to deal appropriately with abusers," said Roy Brown, IHEU Main Representative at the UN Geneva.
"Yet for too long it has been given a free ride by the international community because of its presumed moral leadership. Our report is the first to bring the issue to the attention of the Council. We shall be referring to our report in the plenary of the Human Rights Council next week."
Tomasi, however, defended the Church's record, saying that "available research" showed that only 1.5 to 5 per cent of Catholic clergy had been implicated in abuse allegations, and suggesting that some of the focus ought to be shifted to other organizations that are plagued by accusations of sex abuse.
The vast plurality of Protestant churches in the US, numbering more than 224,000, including thousands of independent non-denominational groups, make the kind of organized tracking and recording of individual abuse cases as was done in the Catholic Church all but impossible. Nevertheless, some of the sex abuse cases in other religious communities have been documented piecemeal.
In June 2007, the Associated Press revealed that three companies that insure the majority of Protestant churches in the US said they receive upward of 260 reports each year of young people under 18 being sexually abused by clergy, church staff, volunteers or congregation members. Church Mutual Insurance Co., GuideOne Insurance Co. and Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co., which insure 165,495 churches for liability against child sex abuse, emphasized that their figures did not always specify which cases were against minors and added that not all allegations were followed by convictions or even investigations.
National surveys by Christian Ministry Resources (CMR), a tax and legal-advice publisher serving more than 75,000 congregations and 1,000 denominational agencies, has also issued a report that found that child-abuse allegations against American Protestant churches averaged 70 per week since 1993, with a slight downward trend starting in 1997. The same report also found that among Protestant churches, volunteers are more likely than clergy or paid staff to be abusers.
In 2002, Rt. Rev. William Persell, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, said in a sermon on Good Friday, "We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic problem and has nothing to do with us because we have married and female priests in our church. Sin and abusive behaviour know no ecclesial or other boundaries."
The John Jay Report, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States, found that between 1950 and 2002, a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Of these, the dioceses had been able to substantiate 6,700 accusations against 4,392 priests.
In 2002, at the height of the media frenzy over Catholic sex abuse cases, James Cobble, executive director of CMR, said that although the Catholic Church had received the most media attention, "this problem is even greater with the Protestant churches simply because of their far larger numbers." Of the approximately 350,000 churches in the US, only 5 per cent are Catholic.
Moreover, the evidence showed that abuse cases in the Catholic Church had been linked to the surge of sexual license in society in general coinciding with the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s. Alleged abuses increased dramatically in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Abuse in the Church: Homosexuality, Dissent and Modernism
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/jun/020618a.html
Clergy Abuse in Context - Teachers Sexually Abuse Students Far More Often
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/feb/04020602.html
Now that, we have covered this un-appriopriate topic.
Can we get stay to the original topic, what probably does not include athiests within the discussion. If you want to hit out at the Catholic Church, start a new topic or write a letter to the Vatican.
The sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in the US and abroad was a matter of homosexuals preying on adolescent boys, not one of pedophilia, said the Vatican's representative at the UN in Geneva, Switzerland. It is "more correct," said Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males, than pedophilia, in relation to the scandals.
"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90 per cent belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17," said Tomasi. His statement is backed up by a report commissioned by the US bishops that found that in the overwhelming majority of cases the clergy involved were homosexuals, with 81 percent of victims being adolescent males.
Tomasi also responded to criticisms, saying that while the Catholic Church has been "busy cleaning its own house, it would be good if other institutions and authorities, where the major part of abuses are reported, could do the same and inform the media about it." According to information from various sources, the problem of sexual abuse of minors in religious organizations is widespread among Protestant churches and Jewish communities.
The statement comes in the wake of accusations at the UN Human Rights Council, which published a written statement by a secularist group, the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), alleging that the Vatican was responsible for the proliferation of sexual abuse cases involving Catholic priests. The IHEU accused the Church of a failure to honor obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
"The Holy See has been heavily implicated for decades in covering up cases of child abuse carried our by its clergy and religious orders, in obstructing justice, and in failing to deal appropriately with abusers," said Roy Brown, IHEU Main Representative at the UN Geneva.
"Yet for too long it has been given a free ride by the international community because of its presumed moral leadership. Our report is the first to bring the issue to the attention of the Council. We shall be referring to our report in the plenary of the Human Rights Council next week."
Tomasi, however, defended the Church's record, saying that "available research" showed that only 1.5 to 5 per cent of Catholic clergy had been implicated in abuse allegations, and suggesting that some of the focus ought to be shifted to other organizations that are plagued by accusations of sex abuse.
The vast plurality of Protestant churches in the US, numbering more than 224,000, including thousands of independent non-denominational groups, make the kind of organized tracking and recording of individual abuse cases as was done in the Catholic Church all but impossible. Nevertheless, some of the sex abuse cases in other religious communities have been documented piecemeal.
In June 2007, the Associated Press revealed that three companies that insure the majority of Protestant churches in the US said they receive upward of 260 reports each year of young people under 18 being sexually abused by clergy, church staff, volunteers or congregation members. Church Mutual Insurance Co., GuideOne Insurance Co. and Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co., which insure 165,495 churches for liability against child sex abuse, emphasized that their figures did not always specify which cases were against minors and added that not all allegations were followed by convictions or even investigations.
National surveys by Christian Ministry Resources (CMR), a tax and legal-advice publisher serving more than 75,000 congregations and 1,000 denominational agencies, has also issued a report that found that child-abuse allegations against American Protestant churches averaged 70 per week since 1993, with a slight downward trend starting in 1997. The same report also found that among Protestant churches, volunteers are more likely than clergy or paid staff to be abusers.
In 2002, Rt. Rev. William Persell, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, said in a sermon on Good Friday, "We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic problem and has nothing to do with us because we have married and female priests in our church. Sin and abusive behaviour know no ecclesial or other boundaries."
The John Jay Report, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States, found that between 1950 and 2002, a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Of these, the dioceses had been able to substantiate 6,700 accusations against 4,392 priests.
In 2002, at the height of the media frenzy over Catholic sex abuse cases, James Cobble, executive director of CMR, said that although the Catholic Church had received the most media attention, "this problem is even greater with the Protestant churches simply because of their far larger numbers." Of the approximately 350,000 churches in the US, only 5 per cent are Catholic.
Moreover, the evidence showed that abuse cases in the Catholic Church had been linked to the surge of sexual license in society in general coinciding with the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s. Alleged abuses increased dramatically in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Abuse in the Church: Homosexuality, Dissent and Modernism
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/jun/020618a.html
Clergy Abuse in Context - Teachers Sexually Abuse Students Far More Often
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/feb/04020602.html
Now that, we have covered this un-appriopriate topic.
Can we get stay to the original topic, what probably does not include athiests within the discussion. If you want to hit out at the Catholic Church, start a new topic or write a letter to the Vatican.
Post #15
What was their methodology for determining homosexuality? As I recall, that particular figure was reached by simply labeling anyone who only had reports of abusing male parishioners as "homosexual" and anyone who had mixed reports or female individuals as "heterosexual". That makes their claims circular (and thus useless) as it only relabels existing data groups. Put another way the chain goes like this.
The church finds a large number of sexual abuse cases.
81% of those cases are by men against men.
People who abuse men who are men must be gay.
Therefore 81% of the offenders must be gay.
Therefore the church is not responsible but really it is just a large scale gay infiltration.
Sorry, doesn't fly.
The church finds a large number of sexual abuse cases.
81% of those cases are by men against men.
People who abuse men who are men must be gay.
Therefore 81% of the offenders must be gay.
Therefore the church is not responsible but really it is just a large scale gay infiltration.
Sorry, doesn't fly.
-
Choir Loft
- Banned
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:57 am
- Location: Tampa
Re: Why do Catholics confess their Sins to a Priest?
Post #16STOP AND THINK about this tradition for a moment. Forget about religion and theology and all that and for just a moment think about human needs.Joshua wrote: Why do Catholics confess their sins to priests? What makes them think that
priests can absolve them of the guilt of their sins? Why don't they confess their sins directly to God as Protestants do?
When confronted with a situation about which one feels guilt it often helps to be able to talk to someone about it. Friends and acquaintances can possibly use this information to embarrass you...or worse. A stranger might actually use the knowledge to hurt you. That leaves the government, and we all know what they do with useful information (practically nothing).
Priests and their protestant counterparts are generally trained and experienced in the art of receiving the news of a church member's indiscretions and mistakes. Unlike non-professionals, they also know how to keep their mouth shut even if they get caught up in it themselves. It is a long established socially acceptable way to get something off your chest.
The human need to be forgiven is as great as the need to confess. Whether or not priests have the divine authority to speak on God's behalf to forgive such things is a matter between God, the cleric and the confessor.
Bottom line is that confession to a priest or minister is a way to practice safe sharing (of wrong doing). It also provides a starting point to correct bad behavior and in the end isn't that sort of hope a big part of the role of religion.
BTW it's also free, no need to pay a therapist to do the same thing.
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Why do Catholics confess their Sins to a Priest?
Post #17Nassim Nicholas Taleb recently made a similar point. Since it is only in the mid twentieth century that physicians have actually started to help people and paid therapists and psychologists are still doing untold harm, perhaps religious rites have some positive function. By visiting the shaman and receiving divine absolution, I am avoiding the risk of harm from the paid professionals.richardP wrote: Priests and their protestant counterparts are generally trained and experienced in the art of receiving the news of a church member's indiscretions and mistakes. Unlike non-professionals, they also know how to keep their mouth shut even if they get caught up in it themselves. It is a long established socially acceptable way to get something off your chest.
[...]
BTW it's also free, no need to pay a therapist to do the same thing.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
Post #18
This practice (confession to a priest) seems downright civilized when compared to its closest counterpart in the OT, animal sacrifice. Yes, all your sins against God as written in the Law had to be atoned for by the ritual slaughter of livestock, pouring their reeking blood over a fly-blown altar, and devouring the carcass with a blood-soaked priest. The hides and inedibles were burned. Day after day this slaughterhouse method of confession took place amid the stink of death, decay, offal, buzzing flies, burnt flesh and hides, and the soul-wrenching bawls of terrified animals. And yet this horrible scene was a "restful odor" to Yahweh. :censored:
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize [hu]mankind. Thomas Paine
-
TheCatholic
Post #19
The following is an excerpt from this source:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0110sbs.asp
1. Why do I have to go to a priest for confession instead of going straight to God? After all, the Bible says that "there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).
The Lord does want us to come to him when we fall into sin. He wants to bring us forgiveness so much that he gave the apostles the power to forgive sins. This power given to the apostles and their successors does not come from within them but from God. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus gave the apostles authority over unclean spirits, the authority to heal, the authority to raise people from the dead, et cetera. No Christian assumes that these powers came from the men themselves, since God is the one that has chosen to use them to manifest his power and mercy.
In the words of Paul, "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18). The apostles and their successors are merely ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20), bringing his forgiveness to the world through the sacraments and the message of the gospel. If God has chosen to bring his message of forgiveness to the world by means of sinful, human ambassadors, why would he not be able to give these messengers the power to forgive and retain sins? And why would this not be a natural way for Jesus to extent his merciful presence on earth for all generations?
If Jesus has set up a way for us to draw near to him and receive his grace, why should we prefer another route? We would be like the three-year-old with his father who, in a rush to get home from the store, begins to run. "Let me pick you up," the father offers. The child says, "No, Dad. I’m fast. Just watch me." It takes them much longer to get home because the child’s pride prevents him from accepting his father’s help. Likewise, God does hear us when we ask for forgiveness, but it is dangerous and often prideful to stay away from what the saints call the "medicine box"—the confessional. Why would a person wish to overcome their sins alone when they have the God-given power of the apostles’ successors at their disposal?
2. Where is the sacrament of confession in the Bible?
As soon as Jesus rose from the dead and earned salvation for us, he brought his apostles a new gift. After speaking peace to them, he said, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (John 20:21). Just as Jesus was sent by the Father to reconcile the world to God, Jesus sent the apostles to continue his mission.
Jesus then breathed on the apostles. This is a verse that is often passed over, but it has extraordinary significance because it is only the second time in all of Scripture where God breathes on anyone. The other instance was at the moment of creation, when God breathed his own life into the nostrils of Adam. This should tell us that something of great importance is taking place. Upon doing this, Jesus said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:22–23).
Notice that Jesus is not simply commissioning the apostles to preach about God’s forgiveness. He is not saying, "Go tell everyone that when God forgives men’s sins, they’re forgiven." In using the second person plural you, Jesus is telling his apostles that by the power of the Holy Spirit he has given them the power to forgive and retain the sins of men. Having the power to forgive and to retain sins implies that the apostle knows what a person’s sins are, which in turn implies oral confession. Otherwise, how is the apostle to know what to retain or forgive?
In the same way that Jesus gave his apostles other supernatural powers (such as raising men from the dead), he gave them power to absolve sins (raising them from spiritual death). In Matthew 9, we read that Jesus forgave a paralytic and then healed him so "that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6)
After he exercised this power as a man, the crowds glorified God for having given "such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8, emphasis added). Notice that Matthew indicates this power to forgive sins had been given to men, and not simply to a man.
3. Doesn’t confession of one’s sins imply that Christ’s work was insufficient? The Bible says that if I believe that Jesus is Lord, I’ll be saved.
The passage you referred to is Acts 16:31, which reads, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." Sounds pretty simple. However, the Bible says much more about salvation and forgiveness. Jesus repeatedly affirmed that if we do not forgive others, we will not be forgiven (Matt. 6:15). When Jesus breathed on the apostles in John 20, he gave them the power to retain sins. But if one’s salvation is contingent upon nothing other than a verbal profession of faith, then there is no reason why Jesus would given any man the power to retain sins. In the midst of all of these passages what we need to be careful of is that we do not camp out on one particular Bible passage without consulting the rest of Scripture.
It is because of the work of Christ that we obtain forgiveness. All Christians can agree on that. What needs to be discussed is how that forgiveness comes to mankind. When Ananias spoke to Paul in Acts 22:16, he said, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16). Later in the New Testament, the forgiveness of sins is tied to the sacrament of the anointing of the sick (James 5:13–15). Just as these Biblical practices are channels of God’s forgiving grace, the sacrament of confession does not add to or take away from the finished work of Christ. It is evidence of the finished work of Christ in our midst.
4. How can Catholics claim confession to a priest is an apostolic tradition? I heard it was invented in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council.
What you heard probably came from the anti-Catholic book Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner. This book is well known for its inaccurate history, and the reference you gave is a primary example. During the Fourth Lateran Council, the Church reminded the faithful in an official way what had already been the ancient practice of the Church—to confess mortal sins at least once a year. In no way was this the initiation of a new sacrament or even a new way to celebrate an old sacrament. If the Church did initiate the sacrament of reconciliation in 1215, why were there no cries at the time of invention? The obvious answer is no one objected because they were aware that the sacrament was over a millennium old at the time of the Council.
Consider the following early Christian writings from the first five centuries:
"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).
"[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness"(Tertullian, Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).
"[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 . . . and by the Spirit of the high-priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command" (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).
"Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men" (John Chrysostom, The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0110sbs.asp
1. Why do I have to go to a priest for confession instead of going straight to God? After all, the Bible says that "there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).
The Lord does want us to come to him when we fall into sin. He wants to bring us forgiveness so much that he gave the apostles the power to forgive sins. This power given to the apostles and their successors does not come from within them but from God. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus gave the apostles authority over unclean spirits, the authority to heal, the authority to raise people from the dead, et cetera. No Christian assumes that these powers came from the men themselves, since God is the one that has chosen to use them to manifest his power and mercy.
In the words of Paul, "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18). The apostles and their successors are merely ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20), bringing his forgiveness to the world through the sacraments and the message of the gospel. If God has chosen to bring his message of forgiveness to the world by means of sinful, human ambassadors, why would he not be able to give these messengers the power to forgive and retain sins? And why would this not be a natural way for Jesus to extent his merciful presence on earth for all generations?
If Jesus has set up a way for us to draw near to him and receive his grace, why should we prefer another route? We would be like the three-year-old with his father who, in a rush to get home from the store, begins to run. "Let me pick you up," the father offers. The child says, "No, Dad. I’m fast. Just watch me." It takes them much longer to get home because the child’s pride prevents him from accepting his father’s help. Likewise, God does hear us when we ask for forgiveness, but it is dangerous and often prideful to stay away from what the saints call the "medicine box"—the confessional. Why would a person wish to overcome their sins alone when they have the God-given power of the apostles’ successors at their disposal?
2. Where is the sacrament of confession in the Bible?
As soon as Jesus rose from the dead and earned salvation for us, he brought his apostles a new gift. After speaking peace to them, he said, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (John 20:21). Just as Jesus was sent by the Father to reconcile the world to God, Jesus sent the apostles to continue his mission.
Jesus then breathed on the apostles. This is a verse that is often passed over, but it has extraordinary significance because it is only the second time in all of Scripture where God breathes on anyone. The other instance was at the moment of creation, when God breathed his own life into the nostrils of Adam. This should tell us that something of great importance is taking place. Upon doing this, Jesus said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:22–23).
Notice that Jesus is not simply commissioning the apostles to preach about God’s forgiveness. He is not saying, "Go tell everyone that when God forgives men’s sins, they’re forgiven." In using the second person plural you, Jesus is telling his apostles that by the power of the Holy Spirit he has given them the power to forgive and retain the sins of men. Having the power to forgive and to retain sins implies that the apostle knows what a person’s sins are, which in turn implies oral confession. Otherwise, how is the apostle to know what to retain or forgive?
In the same way that Jesus gave his apostles other supernatural powers (such as raising men from the dead), he gave them power to absolve sins (raising them from spiritual death). In Matthew 9, we read that Jesus forgave a paralytic and then healed him so "that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6)
After he exercised this power as a man, the crowds glorified God for having given "such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8, emphasis added). Notice that Matthew indicates this power to forgive sins had been given to men, and not simply to a man.
3. Doesn’t confession of one’s sins imply that Christ’s work was insufficient? The Bible says that if I believe that Jesus is Lord, I’ll be saved.
The passage you referred to is Acts 16:31, which reads, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." Sounds pretty simple. However, the Bible says much more about salvation and forgiveness. Jesus repeatedly affirmed that if we do not forgive others, we will not be forgiven (Matt. 6:15). When Jesus breathed on the apostles in John 20, he gave them the power to retain sins. But if one’s salvation is contingent upon nothing other than a verbal profession of faith, then there is no reason why Jesus would given any man the power to retain sins. In the midst of all of these passages what we need to be careful of is that we do not camp out on one particular Bible passage without consulting the rest of Scripture.
It is because of the work of Christ that we obtain forgiveness. All Christians can agree on that. What needs to be discussed is how that forgiveness comes to mankind. When Ananias spoke to Paul in Acts 22:16, he said, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16). Later in the New Testament, the forgiveness of sins is tied to the sacrament of the anointing of the sick (James 5:13–15). Just as these Biblical practices are channels of God’s forgiving grace, the sacrament of confession does not add to or take away from the finished work of Christ. It is evidence of the finished work of Christ in our midst.
4. How can Catholics claim confession to a priest is an apostolic tradition? I heard it was invented in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council.
What you heard probably came from the anti-Catholic book Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner. This book is well known for its inaccurate history, and the reference you gave is a primary example. During the Fourth Lateran Council, the Church reminded the faithful in an official way what had already been the ancient practice of the Church—to confess mortal sins at least once a year. In no way was this the initiation of a new sacrament or even a new way to celebrate an old sacrament. If the Church did initiate the sacrament of reconciliation in 1215, why were there no cries at the time of invention? The obvious answer is no one objected because they were aware that the sacrament was over a millennium old at the time of the Council.
Consider the following early Christian writings from the first five centuries:
"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).
"[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness"(Tertullian, Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).
"[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 . . . and by the Spirit of the high-priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command" (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).
"Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men" (John Chrysostom, The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).
Post #20
1. Why do I have to go to a priest for confession instead of going straight to God? After all, the Bible says that "there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).
The Lord does want us to come to him when we fall into sin. He wants to bring us forgiveness so much that he gave the apostles the power to forgive sins. This power given to the apostles and their successors does not come from within them but from God. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus gave the apostles authority over unclean spirits, the authority to heal, the authority to raise people from the dead, et cetera. No Christian assumes that these powers came from the men themselves, since God is the one that has chosen to use them to manifest his power and mercy.
Can you prove with the Bible that the power to forgive sin was given to any one other than the apostles. Also, why would these successors not have the other gifts that the apostles had?
The Lord does want us to come to him when we fall into sin. He wants to bring us forgiveness so much that he gave the apostles the power to forgive sins. This power given to the apostles and their successors does not come from within them but from God. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus gave the apostles authority over unclean spirits, the authority to heal, the authority to raise people from the dead, et cetera. No Christian assumes that these powers came from the men themselves, since God is the one that has chosen to use them to manifest his power and mercy.
Can you prove with the Bible that the power to forgive sin was given to any one other than the apostles. Also, why would these successors not have the other gifts that the apostles had?
