Catechism 1493

St. Paul said:

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1493: One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, MUST CONFESS TO A PRIEST all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. The confession of venial faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.

That's funny, my Bible says otherwise:

1 Tim 2:5-6 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was given at the proper time.

No mention of a priest. Is he somehow transformed into Christ during the confessional? How do Catholics defend such unbiblical teachings?

Click to expand...

Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father, in heaven, and he appointed men to feed his sheep on Earth. Priests are not Jesus but act on his behalf while he is with the Father. Nothing unBiblical about that.

St. Paul said:

Pretending to be God is blasphemy!

Click to expand...

Who is pretending to be God? Priests know that they are not God but God gave them the authority to forgive sin. That is Biblical.

St. Paul said:

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1493: One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, MUST CONFESS TO A PRIEST all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. The confession of venial faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.

That's funny, my Bible says otherwise:

1 Tim 2:5-6 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was given at the proper time.

No mention of a priest. Is he somehow transformed into Christ during the confessional? How do Catholics defend such unbiblical teachings?

Click to expand...

I think you may have highlighted the wrong part of that passage. Note that the statement says that you have to confess to a priest if you want to be reconciled with the church (as well as God). The Roman Catholic Church does not deny that a direct, personal, prayer of repentance is effective, but it (the church) cannot vouch for anyone's standing unless it's a sacramental confession. If you don't care particularly what the Roman Catholic Church thinks and haven't given it jurisdiction over you, of course this wouldn't be a consideration; but for the millions of people who have been taught that their salvation is in jeopardy if they are not in the church's good graces--and believe it to be so--it's relevant indeed

St. Paul said:

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1493: One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, MUST CONFESS TO A PRIEST all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. The confession of venial faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.

That's funny, my Bible says otherwise:

1 Tim 2:5-6 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was given at the proper time.

No mention of a priest. Is he somehow transformed into Christ during the confessional? How do Catholics defend such unbiblical teachings?

Click to expand...

Jesus speaking to his apostles.
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” (John 20:23)

Oh, that Jesus Christ with his heretical unbiblical teachings right?
Well, we Catholics will continue to follow this man who you have deemed a heretic for telling his apostles that they had the power to forgive sins. They aren't all knowing so you must confess your sins so that they know what you did.

football5680 said:

Jesus speaking to his apostles.
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” (John 20:23)

Oh, that Jesus Christ with his heretical unbiblical teachings right?
Well, we Catholics will continue to follow this man who you have deemed a heretic for telling his apostles that they had the power to forgive sins. They aren't all knowing so you must confess your sins so that they know what you did.

Click to expand...

football5680 said:

Jesus speaking to his apostles.
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” (John 20:23)

Oh, that Jesus Christ with his heretical unbiblical teachings right?
Well, we Catholics will continue to follow this man who you have deemed a heretic for telling his apostles that they had the power to forgive sins. They aren't all knowing so you must confess your sins so that they know what you did.

Click to expand...

Unless you missed it, Jesus said what he said to his APOSTLES! You may take it for granted that any graduate of a seminary who gets ordained in 2014 is the automatic inheritor of Jesus' commission there. The "We Catholics" stuff aside, the issue is a lot more complicated--even according to Catholic history--than to conclude with some facile rationalization like "They aren't all knowing so you must confess your sins so that they know what you did."

Albion said:

Unless you missed it, Jesus said what he said to his APOSTLES! You may take it for granted that any graduate of a seminary who gets ordained in 2014 is the automatic inheritor of Jesus' commission there. The "We Catholics" stuff aside, the issue is a lot more complicated--even according to Catholic history--than to conclude with some facile rationalization like "They aren't all knowing so you must confess your sins so that they know what you did."

Click to expand...

So when Jesus gave this power to His Apostles, he only did so for one group of 12 men that would live for a few more years and then die? What is the significance of that?

It was somehow okay for men to forgive sins while the Apostles were alive, but as soon as they died... "HERESY! UNBIBLICAL! STOP PUTTING MEN IN THE PLACE OF GOD!"?

Doesn't make much sense to me. Apostolic succession, however, does make sense.

SMA12 said:

So when Jesus gave this power to His Apostles, he only did so for one group of 12 men that would live for a few more years and then die? What is the significance of that?

Click to expand...

Why were tongues prominent in the early church but ceased after awhile? Why was Peter sent out to address the multitudes on Pentecost with the gift of being heard by each in his own language?

Obviously, the answer to your question is that Christ DID INDEED commission certain practices or authority needed for the short run. My main purpose in that post was to say "Wait just a minute!" to the blithe way that the poster I was responding to poked fun at anyone who might be perceptive enough to understand that the issue is not clean-cut and beyond any possibility of another interpretation.

Never once was there even a recognition of the fact that the idea of every clergyman today having, automatically, the same power or role that the Apostles were given could be just one of several possibilities.

Albion said:

Why were tongues prominent in the early church but ceased after awhile? Why was Peter sent out to address the multitudes on Pentecost with the gift of being heard by each in his own language?.

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges, I believe. Miracles and symbols of the HS vs. a commandment and passing on of authority.

Albion said:

Obviously, the answer to your question is that Christ DID INDEED commission certain practices or authority needed for the short run. My main purpose in that post was to say "Wait just a minute!" to the blithe way that the poster I was responding to poked fun at anyone who might be perceptive enough to understand that the issue is not clean-cut and beyond any possibility of another interpretation. .

Click to expand...

I doubt he intended to poke fun. However the creator of this thread, whom he was responding to, was incredibly disrespectful calling Catholic belief "funny", unbiblical, and accused us of "pretending to be God." He simply provided evidence of just how biblical and practical the teaching is.

Albion said:

Never once was there even a recognition of the fact that the idea of every clergyman today having, automatically, the same power or role that the Apostles were given could be just one of several possibilities.

Click to expand...

Every clergyman, no. Those with valid Apostolic succession, I believe so. There are several possibilities, sure. That's why we need an authority outside of our own interpretation of Scripture- that authority being the pillar and foundation of Truth, the Church. But we don't need to get into that discussion again so soon

God bless Albion

SMA12 said:

Apples and oranges, I believe. Miracles and symbols of the HS vs. a commandment and passing on of authority.

Click to expand...

I'll put it to you more directly then. In effect, you asked "Why?" So I told you. We know very well that Jesus made provision for some things that were needed in order to set up his church but not necessarily to be handed off to people who were not so commissioned.

I doubt he intended to poke fun.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know why you think that, considering the tone of the thing. Of course, if you'll defend any kind of behavior just because it's payback, then that is the answer.

That's funny - my Bible contains John 20:19-23. Does yours?

Here below is a Link to examples of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) mentioned in both Scripture and Church Tradition. It may help.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confession.html

Yes, I know the drill, fellows.

Find any reference to whatever it is and voila...instant sacrament. But that doesn't a sacrament make.

Not any more than delivering a sermon (which was also thought a "possible" at one time in history) or a hundred other actions Christ recommended, did, or mentioned.

We currently have a poster arguing that Baptism with the Holy Spirit is the equivalent of a sacrament (in fact, more important than "water Baptism," he insists) and we have also read others insisting that footwashing is a sacrament. Can you find any Bible verse that shows Christ making a special point about that? I'll bet you can. Do you agree with these arguments? If not, why not? I'm sure you can rustle up some verses for them.


.

Albion said:

Yes, I know the drill, fellows.

Find any reference to whatever it is and voila...instant sacrament. But that doesn't a sacrament make.

Not any more than delivering a sermon (which was also thought a "possible" at one time in history) or a hundred other actions Christ recommended, did, or mentioned.

We currently have a poster arguing that Baptism with the Holy Spirit is the equivalent of a sacrament (in fact, more important than "water Baptism," he insists) and we have also read others insisting that footwashing is a sacrament. Can you find any Bible verse that shows Christ making a special point about that? I'll bet you can. Do you agree with these arguments? If not, why not? I'm sure you can rustle up some verses for them.


.

Click to expand...

I have noticed many of your arguments boil down to "some people read scripture and conclude X and some people read scripture and conclude Y, others Z. So you cannot claim your interpretation is correct." In other words it seems you do not think we can truly know what the truth is so multiple, contradicting truths can be equally valid. Well that is the problem with Sola Scriptura, IMHO.

But I'm sure you know by now the Catholic answer to this dilemma. That answer is that Christ gave us an authority outside of our own interpretation of Scripture. That authority is the Church He established guided by the Holy Spirit, to ensure it remains the "pillar and foundation of truth."

The Church that He established is the authority to tell us what is, and isn't, a sacrament, when we cannot agree on what Scripture means. After all, when Christ established a Church He gave it the power to bind and loose on Earth as in Heaven.

God bless.

SMA12 said:

I have noticed many of your arguments boil down to "some people read scripture and conclude X and some people read scripture and conclude Y, others Z. So you cannot claim your interpretation is correct."

Click to expand...

Hmm. I don't think that that is a favorite theme of mine, but the statement is true, so I guess I don't mind.

What does offend me is the person who simply posts his church's position statement on whatever doctrine it might be, as though he can impose it upon the reader simply by saying it...with no particular evidence to support it or logic or anything but saying it!.

In other words it seems you do not think we can truly know what the truth is so multiple, contradicting truths can be equally valid.

Click to expand...

I certainly do NOT think that. What's more, the comment you started us off with wouldn't imply that, either. If one person says X and another says Y, that doesn't in any way suggest that "all truths are equally valid."

Well that is the problem with Sola Scriptura, IMHO.

Click to expand...

WHAT is the problem with Sola Scriptura? Sola Scriptura does not in any way lead to or imply that all possible interpretations are valid. I hear Catholics all the time say that it does, but that must be just something they've heard some other Catholic say. Like most of the attacks upon Sola Scriptura, they show no real comprehension of what it means. In other words, these are strawman arguments.

But I'm sure you know by now the Catholic answer to this dilemma. That answer is that Christ gave us an authority outside of our own interpretation of Scripture.

Click to expand...

You can say that if you wish, but since Sola Scriptura DOES NOT suggest that any ol' interpretation is as good as the next one, it's completely invalid as a criticism of Sola Scriptura--quite apart from what we may think about using Tradition instead.

Of course, I realize that unless Sola Scriptura is made out to be defective, in one way or another, there's no reason for anyone to turn to any alternative, right?

Albion said:

Hmm. I don't think that that is a favorite theme of mine, but the statement is true, so I guess I don't mind.

What does offend me is the person who simply posts his church's position statement on whatever doctrine it might be, as though he can impose it upon the reader simply by saying it...with no particular evidence to support it or logic or anything but saying it!.

Click to expand...

Chi Rho posted a link above with a ton evidence and logic to support the CC's beliefs about the sacraments. I did not need to add anything to it. If you are offended it is not my fault.

Albion said:

I certainly do NOT think that. What's more, the comment you started us off with wouldn't imply that, either. If one person says X and another says Y, that doesn't in any way suggest that "all truths are equally valid."

Click to expand...

OK maybe I took the logic too far, but one person's interpretation carries no more authority than another's interpretation, leaving one with no way to determine who is correct. Mr. X says his interpretation is valid and Mr. Y's isn't. Mr. Y says his interpetaion is valid Mr. X's isn't. Mrs. Z disagrees with both of them and goes and starts her own church. How can one determine what the truth really is, digging through thousands of unauthoritative interpretations? [/QUOTE]

Albion said:

WHAT is the problem with Sola Scriptura? Sola Scriptura does not in any way lead to or imply that all possible interpretations are valid. I hear Catholics all the time say that it does, but that must be just something they've heard some other Catholic say. Like most of the attacks upon Sola Scriptura, they show no real comprehension of what it means. In other words, these are strawman arguments.

You can say that if you wish, but since Sola Scriptura DOES NOT suggest that any ol' interpretation is as good as the next one, it's completely invalid as a criticism of Sola Scriptura--quite apart from what we may think about using Tradition instead.

Click to expand...

But Sola Scriptura provides no way to know which interpretations are valid. That's why so many well meaning Christians, claiming the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can contradict each other on just about any issue. THAT is the problem with Sola Scriptura.

Albion said:

Of course, I realize that unless Sola Scriptura is made out to be defective, in one way or another, there's no reason for anyone to turn to any alternative, right?

Click to expand...

And if it was proven defective? Say leading to division upon division upon division ever since the doctrine was introduced? Say it gave you no method to definitively determine truth beyond personal opinion, whether it be yours or your pastor's? Reason enough to turn to an "alternative"?

Baptism in the Holy Spirit *is* a sacrament, and has been since Pentecost. Some circles call it "confirmation", others call it "chrismation".

knee-v said:

Baptism in the Holy Spirit *is* a sacrament, and has been since Pentecost. Some circles call it "confirmation", others call it "chrismation".

Click to expand...

Are we switching from one alleged sacrament to another at will in this thread? Anyway, I think your problem here is that you are not referring to the Evangelical/Pentecostal understanding of the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit," yet they are the folks who most often use that terminology and make it a special, separate act of Grace that's believed to be available to every Christian.