CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[steveh_131]

Would it make any difference?

Depends on if it makes sense.

 

[T.Lex]

Depends on if it makes sense.

To whom? You or rambone?

 

[steveh_131]

To whom? You or rambone?

Who cares? This is a 'discussion' thread. Discuss. Or don't. I don't care.

 

[T.Lex]

If I'm going to spend time discussing something important to me, I prefer to do so with people open to the discussion. You, I believe, are open to it. So, if it is you asking, I'm more likely to respond.

 

[foszoe]

If I'm going to spend time discussing something important to me, I prefer to do so with people open to the discussion. You, I believe, are open to it. So, if it is you asking, I'm more likely to respond.

I wouldn't do it.

 

[T.Lex]

I wouldn't do it.

Fair enough.

 

[steveh_131]

If I'm going to spend time discussing something important to me, I prefer to do so with people open to the discussion. You, I believe, are open to it. So, if it is you asking, I'm more likely to respond.

I'm pretty open-minded. I actually have to back-pedal on my previous statement about the Pope, I can't find anywhere in his transcript where he said people 'deserve' forgiveness. That was the Politico writer's ignorance of the subject coming through, and my mistake in attributing the author's words to the pope.

I am curious, though, how one can reconcile the catholic priest's role in forgiveness with the Bible.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

 

[T.Lex]

I am curious, though, how one can reconcile the catholic priest's role in forgiveness with the Bible.

Well, for me it starts with John 20:21-23:

[SUP]21 [/SUP]Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” [SUP]22 [/SUP]And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. [SUP]23 [/SUP]If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

And Matthew 18:18.

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven

It seems like that imperative would have meaning. If it were as simple as, "Hey - tell everyone they don't need priests as long as they are contrite." then that's what He would have said.

So, I start with the presumption that Jesus was trying to be clear in those statements: priests have a role.

Now, I also believe that this is misunderstood and misconstrued. Confessing to a priest is not the ONLY path to absolution. The priest's role is as a personal conduit to God (the Trinity).

It is absolutely possible to, with a contrite heart, skip the middleman and confess to God and be forgiven.

Again, this is my personal opinion, the problem there is human nature. Let's say I confess straight to God. God accepts that and, in His own way, directs me to commit to a difficult penance. Not just 10 Hail Marys or something, but real penance. Apologizing to someone I've wronged. Making reparations. Suffering embarrassment. Human nature will tend to rationalize that away, down to something more like 10 Hail Marys.

When a priest asks something like that of a person, they tend to take it more seriously. The sinner is more likely to truly repent. So, the whole process is more successful.

There is also the historical role of priests/rabbis. But this has already become lengthy.

ETA:
Quick googling and I found this resource-
http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/confess.pdf

 

[foszoe]

If one looks at early church history, confession actually gives the sinner a break. It used to be you stood in front of the whole church and confessed your sins to the congregation. Over time, the priest stands in as the congregation.

 

[steveh_131]

Well, for me it starts with John 20:21-23:

That is a fairly confusing verse with a lot of controversy. Some argue that the apostles weren't actually providing that forgiveness, but were simply given the authority to 'announce' a forgiveness that had already taken place. But that's a little too deep for this discussion, so I'll ask a few different questions:

1. When you say the priest's role is a personal 'conduit', is it simply a method for confessing your sins to God but... with another person in the room? Or do you ascribe some sort of power to that priest to actually decide whether those sins are forgiven... based on the level of contrition they perceive? Or to assigncertain actions the person must perform in order to achieve forgiveness?

I can understand the practicality of confessing to another person. There is value in having close relationships with other Christians and airing out your failures with them, holding each other accountable, etc. If that's all this is and the priest is simply providing a place to do so and a friend to do it with, then I could see that.

2. Why are there no other examples in the bible, especially the letters written by Paul to New Testament churches, where people were instructed to confess to a person in order to achieve forgiveness?

3. How do you reconcile this role of a priest with 1 Timothy 2:5-6, " For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time."

The greek word for mediator is defined as such: "(a mediator) intervenes to restore peace between two parties, especially as it fulfills a compact or ratifies a covenant."

 

[ChristianPatriot]

That is a fairly confusing verse with a lot of controversy. Some argue that the apostles weren't actually providing that forgiveness, but were simply given the authority to 'announce' a forgiveness that had already taken place. But that's a little too deep for this discussion, so I'll ask a few different questions:

1. When you say the priest's role is a personal 'conduit', is it simply a method for confessing your sins to God but... with another person in the room? Or do you ascribe some sort of power to that priest to actually decide whether those sins are forgiven... based on the level of contrition they perceive? Or to assigncertain actions the person must perform in order to achieve forgiveness?

I can understand the practicality of confessing to another person. There is value in having close relationships with other Christians and airing out your failures with them, holding each other accountable, etc. If that's all this is and the priest is simply providing a place to do so and a friend to do it with, then I could see that.

2. Why are there no other examples in the bible, especially the letters written by Paul to New Testament churches, where people were instructed to confess to a person in order to achieve forgiveness?

3. How do you reconcile this role of a priest with 1 Timothy 2:5-6, " For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time."

The greek word for mediator is defined as such: "(a mediator) intervenes to restore peace between two parties, especially as it fulfills a compact or ratifies a covenant."

And the fact that the Jews had a "priest" system in the Old Testament. The High Priest would make a sacrifice for the whole nation once a year, but Jesus definitively abolished the practice through his crucifixion. It was symbolized by the veil being rent in two.

 

[T.Lex]

That is a fairly confusing verse with a lot of controversy. Some argue that the apostles weren't actually providing that forgiveness, but were simply given the authority to 'announce' a forgiveness that had already taken place.

Personally, that's a distinction without a difference. I mean, we live in social groups. If someone truly repents, the other humans in the community might not believe it. Having a priest say, "Yeah, dude's forgiven." is more an observation or endorsement than a statement that the priest did the forgiving.

1. When you say the priest's role is a personal 'conduit', is it simply a method for confessing your sins to God but... with another person in the room? Or do you ascribe some sort of power to that priest to actually decide whether those sins are forgiven... based on the level of contrition they perceive? Or to assigncertain actions the person must perform in order to achieve forgiveness?

This is related to your "mediator" question, too, but the priest is supposed to be an agent of Christ. An assistant with particular insight. In the confessional, he is supposed to be like an open door. It is up to us to (metaphorically) go through that door and engage with God.

Only God can forgive. Just like confessing to a priest is not the only way, it also not a sure thing. If someone "fools" a priest, but is not truly repentent, having a priest in the room is just as empty.

But, as an agent of Christ, the priest can explore (for lack of a better word) the sin with the sinner. Try to find out the source of the sin, and address that. Ideally, that is guided by Christ's insight; God knows everything.

The catharsis can be particularly meaningful in terms of repentence.

2. Why are there no other examples in the bible, especially the letters written by Paul to New Testament churches, where people were instructed to confess to a person in order to achieve forgiveness?

Well, I believe Paul did talk about forgiving sins in Corinthians. I could be wrong.

On a different note, how many more examples would be necessary, beyond coming from Christ Himself?

(That was truly intended to be a joke.)

3. How do you reconcile this role of a priest with 1 Timothy 2:5-6, " For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time."

Personally, there are 2 things about that.

First, you left out the next line:

And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

He's not addressing confession specifically, but he talks about being "appointed" as someone to help Christ. To help accomplish the mission. That is consistent with the role of priests.

But second, I see that as an extension of Matthew. Christ the man died. Priests serve the role of a human link to Christ the eternal mediator.

Again, I do not know the specific dogma of the church in these matters. I'm explaining what makes sense to me, and what I believe is consistent with Catholic dogma.

 

[steveh_131]

Only God can forgive. Just like confessing to a priest is not the only way, it also not a sure thing. If someone "fools" a priest, but is not truly repentent, having a priest in the room is just as empty.

But, as an agent of Christ, the priest can explore (for lack of a better word) the sin with the sinner. Try to find out the source of the sin, and address that. Ideally, that is guided by Christ's insight; God knows everything.

Ok. From this perspective I can't really disagree. You're making it more a matter of methodology than doctrine. We agree that only Christ has the authority to forgive and it is ultimately a relationship with Him that provides it.

But then, do you disagree with Pope Francis? He seems to be granting priests the 'authority' (his word) to forgive the sin of abortion... but you're arguing that they don't have the authority to forgive anything, right?

He's not addressing confession specifically, but he talks about being "appointed" as someone to help Christ. To help accomplish the mission. That is consistent with the role of priests.

Well, to be fair Paul was personally selected by Jesus Himself. I'm not sure that this really equates to men who are chosen by other men who were chosen by other men, does it?

Christ the man died. Priests serve the role of a human link to Christ the eternal mediator.

He died, but He also rose again. Why rise again if we were intended to appoint other humans in his place?

 

[T.Lex]

But then, do you disagree with Pope Francis? He seems to be granting priests the 'authority' (his word) to forgive the sin of abortion... but you're arguing that they don't have the authority to forgive anything, right?

This is more an administrative thing, I think. Technically, the bishops are the ones who have the 'authority within the church' (abbreviated to 'authority') to take the confessions and have sinners un-ex-communicated. In the US (and this was news to me), that had been delegated to parish priests since the 1980s. Elsewhere, that was not the case.

Again, this isn't the 'authority' to forgive, but the 'authority' to hear the confession and have the person reinstated. That is my understanding.

Well, to be fair Paul was personally selected by Jesus Himself.

True dat.

I'm not sure that this really equates to men who are chosen by other men who were chosen by other men, does it?

Well, that's basically how the Catholic Church (and, as far as I know, all the other churches that use priests) thinks it goes, with one caveat: each successive generation of men picked by God train and observe the next generation of men called by God to become priests. It is not easy (at least in the Catholic Church) to become or to be priests. I think it is truly a calling.

Why rise again if we were intended to appoint other humans in his place?

Again, I see this as an administrative thing. If successive generations of humans were not supposed to have people appointed by God to lead them, then Christianity would have been VERY short lived. Basically the second generation after Christ would've been the end.

And a small (well, big, actually) point: humans are not appointed in His place. IMHO, some humans are called to be particularly near to Him and act as his agent. Ideally, we all would. But, I believe we are all called to act on his behalf in different ways. (I think there's a passage related to that, too.)

 

[ChristianPatriot]

.Again, I see this as an administrative thing. If successive generations of humans were not supposed to have people appointed by God to lead them, then Christianity would have been VERY short lived. Basically the second generation after Christ would've been the end.

The Bible does spell out leadership roles for the church: pastors, elders, etc. What we're talking about is using a man as a conduit to confess sins to God. It just isn't necessary. Even if it feels good to be honest and open with a Priest, I don't believe that that is the method intended in scripture. Extra-biblical practices can be dangerous.

 

[T.Lex]

The Bible does spell out leadership roles for the church: pastors, elders, etc. What we're talking about is using a man as a conduit to confess sins to God. It just isn't necessary. Even if it feels good to be honest and open with a Priest, I don't believe that that is the method intended in scripture. Extra-biblical practices can be dangerous.

I don't really disagree with any of that... but, in the interest of discussion...

Orthodoxy is probably closest to practicing the actual methods of the early church of any of the denominations. Everything else is... augmented with different traditions. So, unless you are Orthodox....

But, even saying that, I think scripture is intentionally short on "methods." The goal is for people to be "good." For people to live Christ-like lives. To minimize sinfulness and follow the path God intends for them. Whatever method helps people do that, IMHO, is a "good" thing.

To your point about extra-biblical practices, the further we get from the Word of God, the bigger the risk of sinfulness. Totally agree with that. And, certainly, there have been times when the Catholic Church has strayed - both as an institution and as individual members of it.

But, I'd say for the last few hundred years, the Church has been doing better. As recently as this summer, we (at least my parish) are tweaking some liturgical things based on the Second Vatican Council.

We can all - as people and as churches - strive to do better.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't really disagree with any of that... but, in the interest of discussion...

Orthodoxy is probably closest to practicing the actual methods of the early church of any of the denominations. Everything else is... augmented with different traditions. So, unless you are Orthodox....

But, even saying that, I think scripture is intentionally short on "methods." The goal is for people to be "good." For people to live Christ-like lives. To minimize sinfulness and follow the path God intends for them. Whatever method helps people do that, IMHO, is a "good" thing.

To your point about extra-biblical practices, the further we get from the Word of God, the bigger the risk of sinfulness. Totally agree with that. And, certainly, there have been times when the Catholic Church has strayed - both as an institution and as individual members of it.

But, I'd say for the last few hundred years, the Church has been doing better. As recently as this summer, we (at least my parish) are tweaking some liturgical things based on the Second Vatican Council.

We can all - as people and as churches - strive to do better.

I agree with this. I deplore the fussing and fighting about which denomination is "best". JFC (Just Follow Christ) as best you can.

 

[bulletsmith]

Hello.

I have not really paid attention to this thread, and have not read all of the pages, but reading the last handful of posts on the discussion of confession I would like to throw a little perspective at it.

Consider that in the early church confession was a public experience. When you committed a sin, you were expected to not only confess, but show repentance. Imagine standing up in front of your community and telling all... Pretty effective. Now consider what havoc that could reap on a more modern community. The gossip alone... You are not actually confessing to the Priest. You are confessing to God in front of the Priest, who stands in as the community. The priest does not "give" absolution, he just re-states that Christ has forgiven you of your sins because you have confessed and repented.

This is my understanding, It comes from the prospective of a person raised protestant and a later converting to an Eastern Orthodox faith. Along with quite long time spent asking questions and challenging the Church.

I agree with this. I deplore the fussing and fighting about which denomination is "best". JFC (Just Follow Christ) as best you can.

Couldn't agree more!

 

[JettaKnight]

Hello.

I have not really paid attention to this thread, and have not read all of the pages, but reading the last handful of posts on the discussion of confession I would like to throw a little perspective at it.

Consider that in the early church confession was a public experience. When you committed a sin, you were expected to not only confess, but show repentance. Imagine standing up in front of your community and telling all... Pretty effective. Now consider what havoc that could reap on a more modern community. The gossip alone... You are not actually confessing to the Priest. You are confessing to God in front of the Priest, who stands in as the community. The priest does not "give" absolution, he just re-states that Christ has forgiven you of your sins because you have confessed and repented.

This is my understanding, It comes from the prospective of a person raised protestant and a later converting to an Eastern Orthodox faith. Along with quite long time spent asking questions and challenging the Church.

(1) My spidey sense always tingle when I hear, "in the early Church they..." as if it was all resolved then and there. Maybe they were better than us because they walked to church in Rome - uphill both ways.
(2) Why does the priest then demand I say some repetitive prayer?
(3) Are you claiming that these tight knit early churches had less gossip than a modern one?
(4) When did the church make the shift from public confessions to private ones?
(5) Protestant disciples do confess to each other - we call it accountability, e.g. accountability partners.

(genuine curious - the only knowledge I have about Eastern Orthodox is from my college classes)