Does a priest have authority to withhold forgiveness?

[~Anastasia~]

No. We are talking here only about committing or actual intent to commit the sin.

I'm glad to hear that.

I am IN NO WAY supportive of any kind of cover-up, or enabling one to harm innocents. Ever.

But this is a difficult situation. It's hard for me to think through it since I'm not in such a position, but I have to wonder how it affects Confession if someone knew going in the authorities would become involved. Though I can well imagine if I confessed a serious sin (like murder, God forbid), my priest would perhaps not absolve without turning oneself in. I also can't imagine him turning someone in. Though from the point of view of one confessing, it weighs too much to have absolution withheld - it would be better to turn oneself in and deal with the consequences than to have a serious sin deliberately retained by a priest.

If it got so far as to not even be able to confess struggles though, I would think the Sacrament would be severely compromised by the State, and to me that is a serious problem.

Discussing struggles with one's confessor would be normal (for those who use confession; it isn't mandatory) in my tradition.

That's also good to hear. It's like that for us.

I suspect those whose habit it is to confess each time before receiving Holy Communion (the Russians for example) wouldn't take time for every temptation, but then they tend to have a line for confession at least once a week. In our jurisdiction, we make an appointment and I know our priest schedules an hour typically.

 

[Paidiske]

I personally have never been in the situation of hearing such a confession of child abuse. But those who have, tell me that by the time the penitent comes to them, they are ready to deal with what they have done, and that reporting comes almost as a relief as the hiding and secrecy ends.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I personally have never been in the situation of hearing such a confession of child abuse. But those who have, tell me that by the time the penitent comes to them, they are ready to deal with what they have done, and that reporting comes almost as a relief as the hiding and secrecy ends.

That makes a lot of sense.

I just try to put myself in the mental position of confessing a serious sin, and I think I'd rather face the consequences and receive absolution too (and hopefully deal with whatever precipitated it so it never happened again!) ... than I could value a simple absolution with no other steps. After all, God is not mocked.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Here is a hypothetical situation that was discussed back when I was in catechism class almost 40 years ago...

Here is the circumstances:

1. A person is arrested for murder, tried, convicted and sentenced to hang.
2. A different individual comes to their Pastor and confesses to the murder, and expresses an affected conscience for the murder and for the wrongly convicted person.
3. The individual refuses turn themselves in and vindicate the person wrongly convicted.

In these circumstances the Pastor has three obligations:

1. To admonish the guilty party, urging them to turn themselves in and save the innocent person;
2. To maintain the seal of the the confessional and not divulge any of the information given to him by the guilty party, regardless of the outcome.
3. Not to absolve the guilty person, because if they were truly contrite, they would heed the advice of the Pastor and turn themselves in.

Scripture clearly states that the Church does have the authority to forgive and retain sins.

 

[jongault]

in confession does the priest have any authority to say to the penitent "Your sins are not forgiven"

A priest has no authority to forgive sins, period. Therefore, withholding forgiveness is not even a choice. There are zero scriptural references to anyone other than Jesus having the authority to forgive sins. Even the pharisees challenged Jesus' authority thinking he was just a man and only God could forgive sins. But since Jesus is God, He maintains that authority. No one singe apostle is recorded as forgiving anyone sins.

Catholics, once the bible was translated into Latin and all common language versions of the bible banned, created many techniques that allowed members to pay a fee to receive many different avenues for avoiding God's punishment. These were all designed to bring money into the church treasury. When people like Tyndale started translating the original Greek text and comparing it to the latin Vulgate was it realized the latin was a true translation. Peter held no special apostolic succession over any other apostle, penance wasn't in the original Greek text and bread isn't mentioned as a substance that transfigures into the actual body of Jesus when consumed.

In reality, the concept of the communion is steeped in Jewish tradition. At EVERY meal, bread was passed at the start of the meal and wine was passed at the end. Blood was a substance not only forbidden for consumption by the Jewish traditions, but even in the new testament it is forbidden as it's the life essence of all living things. It would not be consistent to allow the wine to actually transfigure to the blood of Jesus. It was a symbolic event based on old Jewish tradition so that Jesus' sacrifice would be honored as Him paying the price for our sins.

 

[gordonhooker]

I am sure someone will point the previous poster to the Traditional forum rules.

 

[prodromos]

Statement of Purpose - Traditional Theology Statement of Purpose

 

[ViaCrucis]

A priest has no authority to forgive sins, period. Therefore, withholding forgiveness is not even a choice. There are zero scriptural references to anyone other than Jesus having the authority to forgive sins. Even the pharisees challenged Jesus' authority thinking he was just a man and only God could forgive sins. But since Jesus is God, He maintains that authority. No one singe apostle is recorded as forgiving anyone sins.

Catholics, once the bible was translated into Latin and all common language versions of the bible banned, created many techniques that allowed members to pay a fee to receive many different avenues for avoiding God's punishment. These were all designed to bring money into the church treasury. When people like Tyndale started translating the original Greek text and comparing it to the latin Vulgate was it realized the latin was a true translation. Peter held no special apostolic succession over any other apostle, penance wasn't in the original Greek text and bread isn't mentioned as a substance that transfigures into the actual body of Jesus when consumed.

In reality, the concept of the communion is steeped in Jewish tradition. At EVERY meal, bread was passed at the start of the meal and wine was passed at the end. Blood was a substance not only forbidden for consumption by the Jewish traditions, but even in the new testament it is forbidden as it's the life essence of all living things. It would not be consistent to allow the wine to actually transfigure to the blood of Jesus. It was a symbolic event based on old Jewish tradition so that Jesus' sacrifice would be honored as Him paying the price for our sins.

Your understanding of Scripture, historic Christian teaching, and the history and teachings of Catholicism all seem to be deeply lacking.

Further, this is the Traditional Theology board, what you are posting here is in violation of the rules. You're new, so it can't be expected that you know all the rules, but as a general guideline, each subforum/board usually has rules for that forum sticky posted at the top, these are in addition to the general site-wide rules.

Disclaimer, no, nobody is censoring you. You are free to debate these topics on Christian Forums, but must be in the appropriate part of the site, and this isn't it.


-CryptoLutheran

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

A priest has no authority to forgive sins, period. Therefore, withholding forgiveness is not even a choice. There are zero scriptural references to anyone other than Jesus having the authority to forgive sins. Even the pharisees challenged Jesus' authority thinking he was just a man and only God could forgive sins. But since Jesus is God, He maintains that authority. No one singe apostle is recorded as forgiving anyone sins.

Catholics, once the bible was translated into Latin and all common language versions of the bible banned, created many techniques that allowed members to pay a fee to receive many different avenues for avoiding God's punishment. These were all designed to bring money into the church treasury. When people like Tyndale started translating the original Greek text and comparing it to the latin Vulgate was it realized the latin was a true translation. Peter held no special apostolic succession over any other apostle, penance wasn't in the original Greek text and bread isn't mentioned as a substance that transfigures into the actual body of Jesus when consumed.

In reality, the concept of the communion is steeped in Jewish tradition. At EVERY meal, bread was passed at the start of the meal and wine was passed at the end. Blood was a substance not only forbidden for consumption by the Jewish traditions, but even in the new testament it is forbidden as it's the life essence of all living things. It would not be consistent to allow the wine to actually transfigure to the blood of Jesus. It was a symbolic event based on old Jewish tradition so that Jesus' sacrifice would be honored as Him paying the price for our sins.

Others have outlined the rules here; but just to clarify; Latin was the common language of the Roman Empire. Prejudices are no substitute for historic facts.

 

[DamianWarS]

There are zero scriptural references to anyone other than Jesus having the authority to forgive sins

John 20:23

 

[jongault]

Your understanding of Scripture, historic Christian teaching, and the history and teachings of Catholicism all seem to be deeply lacking.

Further, this is the Traditional Theology board, what you are posting here is in violation of the rules. You're new, so it can't be expected that you know all the rules, but as a general guideline, each subforum/board usually has rules for that forum sticky posted at the top, these are in addition to the general site-wide rules.

Disclaimer, no, nobody is censoring you. You are free to debate these topics on Christian Forums, but must be in the appropriate part of the site, and this isn't it.

-CryptoLutheran

OK, I read the rules, I'm still not completely sure what rule I violated, but I apologize for anything I said that offended anyone.

So, this is just about the traditional views of Catholicism? I mean I believe in most of what was developed such as the Nicene creed and various other creeds and prayers, but I split when Apostolic powers went to forgiveness of sins (I actually split with Apostolic succession as there is no scriptural basis for it). There is no scriptural evidence any of them ever did. As to Latin being the official language of the Roman Empire, I agree its true, but I don't agree it was the language of the early church. After all, all letters and correspondence written to the churches were in either Greek or Aramaic and the Latin wasn't created until late 4th century.

Again, I apologize if I offended anyone. I'll refrain from contributing to this particular forum going forward.

 

[jongault]

John 20:23

That's not what that means. In the context it is about forgiving others who sin against us individually. I can forgive you if you wronged me somehow and you can choose to forgive me, but sins against God can only be forgiven by God. When Jesus told them this not all apostles were there (at least Thomas was absent) and this was prior to Pentecost and baptism of the Holy Spirit. Often Jesus said they should forgive those who harm them. Matthew 18:21-22

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
​

 

[gordonhooker]

OK, I read the rules, I'm still not completely sure what rule I violated, but I apologize for anything I said that offended anyone.

So, this is just about the traditional views of Catholicism? I mean I believe in most of what was developed such as the Nicene creed and various other creeds and prayers, but I split when Apostolic powers went to forgiveness of sins (I actually split with Apostolic succession as there is no scriptural basis for it). There is no scriptural evidence any of them ever did. As to Latin being the official language of the Roman Empire, I agree its true, but I don't agree it was the language of the early church. After all, all letters and correspondence written to the churches were in either Greek or Aramaic and the Latin wasn't created until late 4th century.

Again, I apologize if I offended anyone. I'll refrain from contributing to this particular forum going forward.

May I suggest you go back and read the rules again...

To summarise you have come into the Traditional Theology forum which consists of any denomination that would fall within the following:

Definition of Traditional Christianity:

Traditional Christians hold to the traditional beliefs and customs of the early church that Jesus Christ established and believe they should be acknowledged and used in the development of the Church today. Traditional Christians believe that the Church and associated Tradition - especially from the Apostolic / early Church - guide us even today. These traditions include sources such as church councils and creeds, writings of the early Church Fathers, testimony of the Lives of the Saints, classic confessions of the faith, etc. Many traditional Christians believe that each Christian is involved in a movement toward God, commonly known as theosis or sanctification. Traditional Christians recognize a variety of sacraments and sacramental acts including, but not limited to; Baptism, Holy Communion (Eucharist), Confession and Absolution, Chrismation (confirmation) etc., and consider them to be additional means whereby God imparts His grace on those who have faith.

This would include denominations like the various Orthodox denominations like the Greek Orthodox, the various Catholic communities, Anglicans, Lutherans and any others that meet the above definition.

Basically the rule you broke was to tell members that Confession/Reconciliation of Penitent is wrong.

Had you said my tradition does not believe in Confession/Reconciliation of Penitent and here is the reason why in a respectful way then it would not have been violation of the forum rules.

PS... John 20:23 is a scriptural basis reference for the tradition of the Confession/Reconciliation of Penitent.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's not what that means. In the context it is about forgiving others who sin against us individually. I can forgive you if you wronged me somehow and you can choose to forgive me, but sins against God can only be forgiven by God. When Jesus told them this not all apostles were there (at least Thomas was absent) and this was prior to Pentecost and baptism of the Holy Spirit. Often Jesus said they should forgive those who harm them. Matthew 18:21-22

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
​

The context of John 20 is the resurrected Jesus giving His apostles their apostolic mission, authority, and duty.

"Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.'" (v. 21)

There is nothing in the context to suggest "it is about forgiving others who sin against us individually" that's not in the text, neither implicitly or explicitly. The text, read plainly, says that the apostles were given the authority to proclaim forgiveness of sins. Yes, the apostles were sent to preach the Gospel, to preach forgiveness of sins, in the name and authority of Jesus Christ. That is biblical, explicitly so. And the Church has always--always--taught that those who sit in the seat of the Apostles retain this apostolic missive. This is why St. Paul can instruct his spiritual son, St. Timothy, to "preach the Gospel in and out of season", because Timothy, as a pastor, shares in the apostolic work to preach the Gospel to every living creature. No, this passage is not a general command to all Christians, it is the specific command to St. Timothy, Paul is giving Timothy pastoral advice on how to serve his station as a pastor.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[~Anastasia~]

OK, I read the rules, I'm still not completely sure what rule I violated, but I apologize for anything I said that offended anyone.

So, this is just about the traditional views of Catholicism? I mean I believe in most of what was developed such as the Nicene creed and various other creeds and prayers, but I split when Apostolic powers went to forgiveness of sins (I actually split with Apostolic succession as there is no scriptural basis for it). There is no scriptural evidence any of them ever did. As to Latin being the official language of the Roman Empire, I agree its true, but I don't agree it was the language of the early church. After all, all letters and correspondence written to the churches were in either Greek or Aramaic and the Latin wasn't created until late 4th century.

Again, I apologize if I offended anyone. I'll refrain from contributing to this particular forum going forward.

Hello and welcome to CF and to TT.

You might notice we are not all Catholic. In fact, I think maybe none I've noticed replying to you are.

The early Church did communicate largely in Greek. Much of the Church still does, and Rome was only part of the Church which split off after the first millennium (though she had been going her own way for some centuries). The Eastern part of the Church has retained the early roots, and likewise practices Confession - though we wouldn't tend to say that "authority" of the priest is a primary thing. The priest rather is a witness. Confession is made to Christ in the presence of the priest (when it's Sacramental - we of course pray and ask forgiveness on our own all the time). The priest prays for us, acts as a witness, and proclaims God's forgiveness. But if the confession is somehow invalidated - of maybe the person has no repentance and fully expects to go right on sinning - well, even if the priest is fooled, God is not mocked. I wouldn't want to assume those sins are forgiven in that case. But we don't worry too much about "legalities" ... that's more a tendency of some Catholic and Protestant thought.

But no, TT isn't just about Catholics (as in those under the Pope of Rome). It's about those who value what was received from the Apostles as authoritative, and what the Church has always done (though we have many under this umbrella and disagree on some points).

Feel free to ask if you have any questions. And feel free to stick around. But if you wish to debate the Tradition received from the Apostles, that needs to be done in some place like General Theology (or St. Justin's if you want to debate Orthodoxy).

Again, welcome.

 

[DamianWarS]

That's not what that means. In the context it is about forgiving others who sin against us individually. I can forgive you if you wronged me somehow and you can choose to forgive me, but sins against God can only be forgiven by God. When Jesus told them this not all apostles were there (at least Thomas was absent) and this was prior to Pentecost and baptism of the Holy Spirit. Often Jesus said they should forgive those who harm them. Matthew 18:21-22

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
​

the context of the passage is not Matthew 18:21-22 and it's not even related. when we mix verses like this together we develop a type of proof text to simply say what you want it to say and it is irresponsible way of biblical interpretation. Each verse has a context and the most productive meaning is from the immediate context and then it can begin to work outwardly to perhaps get broader meanings but never to change only to agree.

The context of John 20:23 starts with Jesus making a post-resurrection appearance to the disciples, affirming his mission from the Father and passing that on to the disciples by breathing on them the Holy Spirit. And this is what sets up this authority to grant forgiveness.

The message and mission of Christ is to spread the gospel and the gospel brings belief which gives forgiveness. There is definitely an authority being granted here that is implicitly connected with the breathing of the Holy Spirit. Personal forgiveness, however, requires no special authority except for that you wronged in some way; anyone may forgive another that has wronged them regardless of their faith in Christ.

This forgiveness here is however connected with the aforementioned breathing the Holy Spirit. To me, this is the commissioning that we see in Mat 28/Mark 16/Luke 24 as it's a post-resurrection commissioning and fits the contexts synoptically.

Synoptically I would say the context may be developed as follows:

Matthew 28:18-19
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Mark 16:15-18
“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Luke 24:45-49
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

John 20:21-23
“Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

You may disagree with the synoptic reconciliation but what is consistent in these passages is that they are all post-resurrection commissioning that passes authority on to the disciples and even if all are separate events they are all commissions and may and should be grouped together. Jesus breathes the Holy Spirit in John and in Luke he opens their eyes. In Mark, he gives him supernatural endowment which is implicit of the Holy Spirit and in Matthew, he affirms his own commission and passes on to them which again may be argued implicit of the Holy Spirit.

I would suggest at the heart of the passage is about a sending out with power and authority, by the endowment of the Holy Spirit, to spread the gospel (inclusive forgiveness).

 

[jongault]

Had you said my tradition does not believe in Confession/Reconciliation of Penitent and here is the reason why in a respectful way then it would not have been violation of the forum rules.

PS... John 20:23 is a scriptural basis reference for the tradition of the Confession/Reconciliation of Penitent.

Got it! Thank you for clarifying for me.

My tradition teaches that John 20:23 is about us forgiving one another for trespasses against us not forgiving sins incurred against God. So in other words, if someone steals your wallet, you can and should forgive them, but that has no bearing on their forgiveness by God for violation of His law, "Thou shall not steal". This is further supported by the Jewish leaders calling out Jesus when He forgave the sins of the maimed man in the temple. He could forgive because He is God.

 

[jongault]

Feel free to ask if you have any questions. And feel free to stick around. But if you wish to debate the Tradition received from the Apostles, that needs to be done in some place like General Theology (or St. Justin's if you want to debate Orthodoxy).

Again, welcome. [/QUOTE]

Got it! Thank you. I should probably stick to General Theology in any case. I'm not really here to debate either. Maybe offer some of my interpretations, thoughts and encouragements, but I won't be "defending to the death" my positions as I need to practice some humility.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Feel free to ask if you have any questions. And feel free to stick around. But if you wish to debate the Tradition received from the Apostles, that needs to be done in some place like General Theology (or St. Justin's if you want to debate Orthodoxy).

Again, welcome.

Got it! Thank you. I should probably stick to General Theology in any case. I'm not really here to debate either. Maybe offer some of my interpretations, thoughts and encouragements, but I won't be "defending to the death" my positions as I need to practice some humility.[/QUOTE]
We all need to practice humility. It's a very worthwhile exercise (and can be really difficult lol).

God be with you.