 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 211 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16th, 2007 11:35 pm |
|
I had an interesting conversation with an ex-catholic recently, and one of the topics that came up was confession. She professed to be happy that now she can confess directly to God.
So I asked her "Then how do you understand the passage where Jesus says 'Those whose sins you forgive are forgiven, those whose sins you retain are retained.' Surely if it is not Jesus commissioning the Sacrament of Confession, then doesn't it mean that anyone who seeks forgiveness of another and doesn't recieve it can't go to heaven?"
She had no response, so I pose the question to you if you're not catholic how would you answer it, and if you weren't catholic how would you have answered it.
Regards Dave
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 19th, 2007 07:19 pm |
|
Good question Dave. And I'm still waiting for someone to reply. I don't know how I would reply.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 19th, 2007 07:35 pm |
|
| Sorry, folks, I'm a cradle Catholic. I can't answer it. I've also never figured out how Protestants could possibly look past the statement " ... and the gates of hell will not prevail against it," and that Jesus would remain with the Church until the end of time. But then, I've never understood how they can overlook so much of scripture that, to me, can only mean the Catholic Church.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 19th, 2007 08:27 pm |
|
My observation with these texts is that Protestants in general simply don’t deal with them. They are shelved as “too difficult to understand.” The few that are actually willing to grapple with them work very hard to come up with an inventive interpretation that will allow them to skirt the issues they raise. After all, “it can’t mean that!”
David
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 20th, 2007 04:30 pm |
|
I agree with you Dave. These difficult passages are shelved by Protestants. What about the passage in Hebrews 10:29 referring to profaning the blood of the convenant? They can't explain it. I always knew that this passage was very serious and if I truly understood it some day, I would not "profane the blood of the covenant." Now, after reading a teaching on this text by Scott Hahn, I understand that this is referring to the seriousness of partaking in the Holy Eucharist unworthily. My eyes were opened and I glorified God. Finally, this passage made sense!
These moments of epiphany and ecstacy have been quite frequent on my journey toward the Catholic faith. Praise be to God and His holy name.
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
twiggymoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 36 |
| First Name: | Twiggymoo | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nazarene, Free Methodist, Baptist..Romeward bound |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10th, 2007 02:50 pm |
|
I am writing a book called "The Praise Craze, Showboat Evangelicals and Modern Worship". I know it is provocative. In it I address this Scripture and how one denomination deals with it:
Some Bible commentaries gloss over John 20:23 and some try to explain it in their bias. The Beacon Bible Commentary, a commentary put out by the Church of the Nazarene, a holiness denomination, explains the verses thus:“The commission of the disciples – so send I you- was also accompanied by specific authority concerning the forgiveness or retention of sins. Whose soever sins ye remit (forgive), they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. What is the nature of this authority and to whom was it given? There is no indication that it is limited to the ten disciples only. Robertson says: “What He commits to the disciples and to us is the power and privilege of giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins by God, by correctly announcing the terms of forgiveness. …these words apply to any disciple of Christ every member of the Christian community who abides in closest communion with his Lord, who keeps his conscience pure and enlightened by knowledge of other Christian consciences and shares the faith and worship of the community”.
“…there is no indication that it is limited to the ten disciples only…” So do we then presume that this authority was given to any disciple of Christ? “…What He commits to the disciples and to us is the power and privilege of giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins by God by correctly announcing the terms of forgiveness” Huh? Where did they get this idea? What about the retaining of sins, where does this little commentary address this? And, how were the sins “known”? Did they not hear confessions? According to the author of this commentary, “they are enlightened by knowledge of other Christian consciences”. This commentary fails to explain how the disciples knew the sins and what sins there were to forgive or retain. It actually waters down the whole truth of the Scripture.
“Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much”. (Jam 5:16)
“…Look beyond evangelicalism….” To think and believe as a modern evangelical is to never arrive at the Truth.
Peace,
Don
Last edited on Sat Feb 10th, 2007 02:53 pm by twiggymoo
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10th, 2007 03:18 pm |
|
twiggymoo wrote: Robertson says: “What He commits to the disciples and to us is the power and privilege of giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins by God, by correctly announcing the terms of forgiveness. …these words apply to any disciple of Christ every member of the Christian community who abides in closest communion with his Lord, who keeps his conscience pure and enlightened by knowledge of other Christian consciences and shares the faith and worship of the community”.
If this is a correct interpretation and any Christian can announce the terms of forgiveness, then doesn't it follow logically that any Christian can announce the terms of retention? If I choose to announce the retention of a sin, does that mean God does not forgive it? What if someone sins against me and I refuse to forgive. Is that sin not forgiven? Is God bound by my selfishness? What if I announce forgiveness but another member of the Christian community announces retention? Does God forgive the sin or not? Do we vote on it, and the majority rules? Or is the forgiveness of one enough, even though every other Christian may refuse to forgive? Jesus was alone in forgiving the adulterous woman, and everyone else walked away and accepted his forgiveness. And if the forgiveness of one is enough, why don't we just ordain him for that purpose, swear him to secrecy, call him a priest, and confess to him in a little room?
Hmmmmm .... somehow it seems I have come back to the Catholic faith. Funny how that works.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10th, 2007 11:04 pm |
|
Twiggymoo or anyone else,
How does James 5:16 only refer to priests? If the verse says, "Confess your sins one to another, isn't that referring to a brother in Christ confessing to another brother, or a sister confessing to another sister, or a variation of the two? I don't understand how Catholics think that this verse refers to priests alone being able to hear the confessions of others or to pray for others to be healed. (healed instead of saved is used in many translations)
So, who can help me out here?
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10th, 2007 11:15 pm |
|
How does James 5:16 only refer to priests?
It doesn’t. In the early Church, confession was made in the midst of the assembly, and penance was imposed and performed before absolution was given. What records we have of the early times indicate that it was the bishop or priest who presided and absolved, not the congregation. This was assumed and restated by subsequent generations. Over the centuries the practice evolved into the present private confession. This is a matter of prudential practice on the part of the Church, not a change of doctrine. In the same way, and for the same reason, the rituals of the Mass have evolved. We have much clearer documentation of this process than of the sacrament of penance, but since it is analogous, I see no problem. Do you?
David
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10th, 2007 11:38 pm |
|
David,
So are you saying that a brother or sister can confess their sin/sins to another brother or sister? I have on various occasions, confessed my sin to another sister in Christ, and it has resulted in such peace, which I consider to be spiritual healing. Now is saying this, I am not refuting the need for one to confess their sins to a priest. However, what I am saying is that my understanding of James 5:16 is that we, as the universal priesthood of believers, (not the ministerial priesthood), can confess our sins to another believer and that confession can result in healing.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 11th, 2007 01:22 am |
|
Darlene wrote:
So are you saying that a brother or sister can confess their sin/sins to another brother or sister? I have on various occasions, confessed my sin to another sister in Christ, and it has resulted in such peace, which I consider to be spiritual healing. Now in saying this, I am not refuting the need for one to confess their sins to a priest. However, what I am saying is that my understanding of James 5:16 is that we, as the universal priesthood of believers, (not the ministerial priesthood), can confess our sins to another believer and that confession can result in healing.
Yes. In the way you have described it — not as a sacramental absolution, but as a human healing — confession among brethren has a vital role to play in all of human society. It’s the same as an “I’m sorry.”
Sacramental absolution is a supernatural healing, where we are healed in our relationship with God; this is where we must involve a ministerial priesthood. Both healings, however, the societal and the sacramental, are involved in the sacrament of penance, because we are reconciled not only with God but also with our brethren in the Church and with human society in general. This is where the priesthood of believers comes in, for their acceptance of your repentance is as an offering before God, binding us together in the mystical body of Christ, the heavenly Jerusalem. As I like to say, it’s not either/or but both/and.
From this you can better understand why there are “many forms of penance in Christian life,” as the Catechism states (heading for the section 1434–1439). Each form deals with a different aspect of the damage sin causes to all of creation, and especially to mankind.
You can see from this description that the Church’s role in the forgiveness of sins is holistic, not just a “religious cubbyhole” in an otherwise secular life. When a man is saved, it is the whole man, not just the “spiritual part” of him. When mankind is saved, it must be the whole society. Jesus died for all. Whether we accept that sacrifice and the salvation it has won is up to the individual, but humanity as a whole is the beneficiary, not just one small group. This is why we must maintain charity toward our neighbor, and why we must confess to him our offenses.
David
|
|
|
twiggymoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 36 |
| First Name: | Twiggymoo | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nazarene, Free Methodist, Baptist..Romeward bound |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 11th, 2007 08:57 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote: Darlene wrote:
So are you saying that a brother or sister can confess their sin/sins to another brother or sister? I have on various occasions, confessed my sin to another sister in Christ, and it has resulted in such peace, which I consider to be spiritual healing. Now in saying this, I am not refuting the need for one to confess their sins to a priest. However, what I am saying is that my understanding of James 5:16 is that we, as the universal priesthood of believers, (not the ministerial priesthood), can confess our sins to another believer and that confession can result in healing.
Yes. In the way you have described it — not as a sacramental absolution, but as a human healing — confession among brethren has a vital role to play in all of human society. It’s the same as an “I’m sorry.”
Sacramental absolution is a supernatural healing, where we are healed in our relationship with God; this is where we must involve a ministerial priesthood. Both healings, however, the societal and the sacramental, are involved in the sacrament of penance, because we are reconciled not only with God but also with our brethren in the Church and with human society in general. This is where the priesthood of believers comes in, for their acceptance of your repentance is as an offering before God, binding us together in the mystical body of Christ, the heavenly Jerusalem. As I like to say, it’s not either/or but both/and.
From this you can better understand why there are “many forms of penance in Christian life,” as the Catechism states (heading for the section 1434–1439). Each form deals with a different aspect of the damage sin causes to all of creation, and especially to mankind.
You can see from this description that the Church’s role in the forgiveness of sins is holistic, not just a “religious cubbyhole” in an otherwise secular life. When a man is saved, it is the whole man, not just the “spiritual part” of him. When mankind is saved, it must be the whole society. Jesus died for all. Whether we accept that sacrifice and the salvation it has won is up to the individual, but humanity as a whole is the beneficiary, not just one small group. This is why we must maintain charity toward our neighbor, and why we must confess to him our offenses.
David David,
This is deep - but nevertheless wonderful. Evangelicals are in great denial of the need to confess sin in their lives for they believe their past, present, and future sins are already forgiven.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 11th, 2007 11:32 am |
|
twiggymoo wrote: This is deep - but nevertheless wonderful. Evangelicals are in great denial of the need to confess sin in their lives for they believe their past, present, and future sins are already forgiven.
While I do understand that this is their belief, how do they reconcile it to Jesus' statement, "Whose sins you shall retain, they are retained"?
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Ruthie
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houston, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 99 |
| First Name: | Ruthie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nominal Presbyterian, aetheist, evangelical Christian/Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 11th, 2007 12:05 pm |
|
Rick or David:
What would be an example of sins being retained? I can't imagine a priest in a confessional retaining someone's sins. Just what does this mean? Who would do this and why?
Ruthie
____________________
Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it. (NRSV, Luke 18:17)
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 11th, 2007 01:20 pm |
|
Ruthie wrote:What would be an example of sins being retained?
When a priest discerns that a penitent is not really sorry that he committed a sin he has confessed, he is obliged to retain it. (Of course, the priest usually has to test the penitent with queries before making such a judgment, but it has happened. St. Pio of Pietrelcina, who is said to have had, like Jesus, the gift of reading of the human heart, was well known for his occasional refusal of absolution.) A penitent who repeatedly places himself in the occasion of sin, and thus falls time and again, out of a lack of care for his own soul in spite of his confessor’s warning, can also be denied absolution.
Apart from this, it sometimes happens that a person confesses his sins but withholds an additional mortal sin; for whatever reason, he does this on purpose, and not because he forgot. This invalidates the sacrament, and his sins are retained. It is not a retention of sins by the priest, but by the penitent himself.
twiggymoo wrote:Evangelicals are in great denial of the need to confess sin in their lives.
No only Evangelicals, but unfortunately most of mankind, including many Catholics. I believe this is a consequence of Original Sin and our deep-seated estrangement not only from God but from each other.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 11th, 2007 03:44 pm |
|
Ruthie wrote: What would be an example of sins being retained? I can't imagine a priest in a confessional retaining someone's sins. Just what does this mean? Who would do this and why?
Let's suppose I went to confession and confessed that I committed adultery. The priest might ask me if I had ended the affair. If I say no, that I intend to continue sleeping with the woman, then I have obviously not repented. He should rightly refuse to forgive my sin.
Let's suppose I am living with a woman who is not my wife, and I confess having sex with her. He asks me if I am still living with her and I say yes, and we'll probably have relations that night. I obviously have not repented and he should rightly refuse to forgive my sin.
Let's suppose I confessed that I stole some money. He asks me if I have returned the money and I say no, I'm going to use it to buy a new car. I obviously have not repented and he would rightly refuse to forgive my sin.
Let's suppose I committed a burglary and someone else was convicted for the crime. He tells me that as part of my penance he will require me to confess to the police so that this other person is no longer wrongly blamed. I tell him I won't confess. He should rightly refuse to forgive my sin.
These are a few examples. I'm sure you can think of many more. When I pray the Act of Contrition, I promise a sincere effort to "sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin." Obviously, the priest and I both know that I will fail. My promise is to make the effort. If I don't even promise to make an effort, then I have not had a change of heart, I have not repented, and I do not deserve forgiveness.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 622 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12th, 2007 03:02 pm |
|
It's amazing how often you can read a certain passage and never see it's true meaning. This was one of those passages.
I would have been taught to point to the Bible and ask the person to show me one instance of where an apostle of Christ heard confession? Oh, you can't do that? Well, I'm here to tell you that's because they didn't. Therefore, the act of confession to a priest today is meaningless.
I also would have told the person I was speaking to that only God can truly forgive sins. The apostles were able to discern if indivuals were truly repentant, and used Acts 5:1-11 to back me up. But not to actually do the forgiving.
Taken out of Reasoning From the Scriptures, (published by the WTBTS, NY, NY), page 81 & 82, 1985 edition.
Nifty, huh?
It all makes so much more sense to me now.
Ali
|
|
|
Current time is 09:33 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
