The Novelty Of Catholic Confession

[jesussaves]

compare particularly the two bolded parts.


[quote]The Evolution of Auricular Confession

The Catholic Church teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Sacrament of Penance and the private confession to a priest. The Council of Trent sternly warns those who deny that auricular confession was commanded by Christ.

If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says that [b]the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes[/b], is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance, let him be anathema. [1]

The Catholic Church claims that secret confession to a priest has been observed “from the beginning”. But is this historically correct?

We search in vain in the pages of the New Testament for auricular confession. The disciples confessed their faults to each other and freely forgave one another. But they sought God’s forgiveness from God himself, as the Lord Jesus taught us to pray, “Our Father in heaven... Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us” (Luke 11:4). To God the Father they confessed: “If we confess our sins, he (God the Father) is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). The disciples in the apostolic churches knew nothing of private confession to a priest.

What about the first centuries of the early church? Did these early Christians privately confess their sins to a priest to receive absolution? St John Chyrsostom (347-407) said that they confessed to God in prayer without having to disclose their sins to anyone else.

Let us persuade ourselves that we have sinned. Let us say it not with the tongue only, but also with the mind. Let us not call ourselves sinners, but also count over our sins, going over them each specifically. I do not say to you, Make a parade of yourself, nor accuse yourself before others: but be persuaded by the prophet when he says, 'Reveal your way unto the Lord' (Psalm 37:5). Confess these things before God. Confess before the Judge your sins with prayer; if not with tongue, yet in memory, and be worthy of mercy. [2]

In his sermon to the catechumens, St Augustine (354-430 AD) gives us a snapshot of the practice in his time; he said that Christians prayed to God for forgiveness:

For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. What has the Prayer? "Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors." Once for all we have washing in Baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. [3]

Except for very grave sins (such as adultery, murder and idolatry, for which the offender was required to publicly confesses his sins to the church), at that time, Christians confessed to God and not to a priest.

[b]Private confession to a priest was introduced more than six hundred years after the birth of the church. Interestingly the Catechism of the Catholic Church admits this historical fact[/b]:

During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the "private" practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. [4]

Please notice that in the seventh century, private confession was a “new practice.” Subsequently it became more and more popular, but even up to the 12th century, the scholastic theologian Peter the Lombard did not make the mediation of the priest a requirement, but declared that confession to God was sufficient. Furthermore he says that there was no agreement in his time whether confession to a priest was essential. [5]

Finally the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) made auricular confession obligatory on all Catholics, who were compelled to “individually confess all their sins in a faithful manner to their own priest at least once a year.” [6]

This rule remains to the present day. The canon law states that “all the faithful who have reached the age of discretion are bound faithfully to confess their grave sins at least once a year.” [7]

But the early Christians did not confess their sins to a priest, not in a year, not even in a lifetime. Yet the Catholic magisterium has the audacity to compel the people of God to submit to a human invention that Christ never commanded.

But perhaps God will give you courage to cast off the human tradition of auricular confession, and like the early Christians, you begin confessing your sins directly to God, just as the Lord Jesus Christ taught us to pray for forgiveness to the Father. God is faithful. He will hear you. He will forgive you if you apply your heart to him.

References:

[1] Council of Trent, Session 14, Canon 6.
[url="http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent14.htm"]http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.co...ENT/trent14.htm[/url]

[2] St. Chrysostom. Homily 31 on Hebrews.
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240231.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240231.htm[/url]

[3] St. Augustine. A Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed.
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1307.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1307.htm[/url]

[4] Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 1447.
[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm[/url]

[5] Philip Schaff. History of the Christian Church. 5; 117. [url="http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/5_ch14.htm#_ednref108"]http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/5_ch14.htm#_ednref108[/url]

[6] Fourth Lateran Council.
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum12.htm"]http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum12.htm[/url]

[7] Code of Canon Law, 989.
[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3H.HTM"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3H.HTM[/url][/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

There's a difference between the two forms of Confession being different and the two being at odds or "at variance" as the first bolded part says.

God bless,

Micah

PS-Only in the context of the Catholic Church could something 1400 years old be called a "novelty."

[Mateo el Feo]

Great question, and well researched. To figure it out the answer, I had to read your citations a couple times. Anyway, the Council of Trent is correct. Penitents confess privately to priests, and have since the beginning.

Let's proceed to your other quote:[quote]During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the "private" practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church.[/quote]Also an accurate quote.

Now, let's end with your claim:[quote]Private confession to a priest was introduced more than six hundred years after the birth of the church. Interestingly the Catechism of the Catholic Church admits this historical fact:[/quote]This claim is the problem.

Let me explain: penance refers to the instruction that a priest (i.e. the confessor) gives to the person who is confessing his sins. For example, I might be told to pray a particular prayer to Jesus for seven consecutive nights. As you might guess, making my penance of prayer "public" has nothing to do with making my sins public. And that's what the Catechism is talking about when it refers to "public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church."

Does that make sense?

[Aloysius]

There is certainly nothing new under the sun. I shall let the Fathers of the Council of Trent defeat you.

The Selfsame Session, namely Session 14, The Teaching on the Sacrament of Penance, Chapter 6

"For the rest, with regard to the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, though Christ has not forbidden anyone to confess his sins publicly--in expiation for his offences and in self-humiliation, both as an example to others and for the edification of the church which has been offended--yet this is not commanded by divine precept, nor would it be really well-considered to enjoin by human law that sins, especially secret ones, must be revealed by public confession. The fact that secret sacramental confession, which holy church has used from its beginning and still uses, has always been commended by the most venerable and most anceint fathers with great and unanimous agreement, clearly refutes that empty calumny of those who do not fear to teach that it is a human invention foreign to the divine command, originating from the fathers assembled in the Lateran council; for the church did not establish through the Lateran council that Christ's faithful should confess, which it had understood to be a necessary institution of divine law, but that the precept of confession should be discharged by one and all at least once a year on their reaching the age of discretion."

And these bishops were no geniuses-- they knew the Early Church Fathers probably better than you or I know them. Yet you presume to take them for geniuses because you yourself have never heard of the Early Church's practices of confession?

So therefore let me begin with this: "secret sacramental confession, which holy church has used from its beginning and still uses, has always been commended by the most venerable and most anceint fathers with great and unanimous agreement". The fathers cite as their very basis that which you declare proves them wrong.

Your basis:

1) It is not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament.
2) The Early Church Fathers deny it
3) Only serious sins were confessed in the public manner of the Early Church
4) Confession was not done with any sort of regularity in the Early Church
5) It was introduced by Seventh Century Irish Missionaries

My response:

1) The basis for the Apostles' ability to forgive and retain sins is found in Christ's words at the Last Supper. The entire Fourteenth Session of this council provides ample argument and support for this position; but I will merely offer this: there is no interpretation which can adequately explain how the apostles were able to "retain" sins unless sins had been explicitly confessed to them.
2) St. John Chrysostem does not say "we confess our sins to God alone and not to a priest"; you read that ONTO him from your point of view. What is objectively present in the writings of St. John Chrysostem are: (a) discussions of prayers to God for forgiveness (which are still present in Catholic writings and teachings even today and (b) lack of any explicit reference to sacramental confession. As a matter of fact, He indicates that Christ's words "whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, whose sins you retain are thus retained" gave to mere men the power to forgive sins (see quotes from below link)
Moreover, Trent cites the Early Church as the basis for her comments on the antiquity of confession. The Didache mentions public in-church confession, which I will save to cite for a later point. Now... what were the Fathers of Trent reading so different from you? Ahhh... that's right... I bet they were reading the actual writings of the Early Church and not just articals on the internet which make conjectures about what they actually say. Hypocritically, I will refer you to an online Artical to show many quotes from the early Church because it is the easiest way for me to pull together all the citations... haha
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Confession.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Confession.asp[/url]
(scroll down to the quotes)

Here are the most shockingly in support of the Council of Trent's assertion that the Church has observed both the secret and public forms of confession to a priest from the beginning:
[quote]
Origen "[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, “I said, "To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity" (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
"Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord" (The Lapsed, 28) (A.D. 251].

"When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance" (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16 [A.D. 395]).[/quote]

Here's the kickers distinguishing the OPTION for PRIVATE confession in the early Church
[quote]
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
"You [priests], then, who are disciples of our illustrious physician [Christ], you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us" (Treatises 7:3 [A.D. 340]).[/quote]

But do not neglect the rest of the quotes provided on the site... that is merely a sample of what the Council of Trent referred to as "unanimous" among the early church fathers.

3) Again, the Council of Trent anticipates you and you would do well to read it all in context. I do believe Chapter 5 of that same teaching on Confession I have been citing from Session 14 specifies that it is only the mortal, or most serious sins, which must be confessed.

"Hence it follows that all mortal sins that penitents are aware of after a careful self-examination have to be related in the confession, even if they are very private and committed only against the last two commandments of the Decalogue, since these amy often quite seriously damage the soul and are more dangerous than those which are openly admitted. For venial sins, by which we are not cut off from the grace of God and into which we more frequently fall, although they may be admitted in confession, [i]can nevertheless be passed over in silence without fault and expiated by many other remedies[/i]" (italics added by me)

The italics refers to how the early Church and indeed the Church of all Time has always dealt with less-serious sins: they need not be confessed to a priest if they are not as serious, prayer for forgiveness suffices.
4) Now I shall bring you back to the Didache, which I promised to return to after my breif mention.

[quote]"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]).[/quote]

Every sunday is the Lord's day. This writing, likely taken from the very sayings and fragments of the Apostles of Christ themselves and continuously compiled between AD 40 and AD 200, mentioned confessing weekly. In the context of the other quotes from the time, this was probably a public confession considered to be directed to God through the community but more specifically through the priest; though evidence shows that it was also an acceptable possibility to confess it privately; all early church quotes refering to ministers as physicians and sinners as their patients.

This throws out the window completely your argument that people did not have sins to continually confess; they were confessing every week! Christ said that he who tells himself he has no sin is a liar. That is true of the baptized as well: all sin.

5) Everything up until this point has totally destroyed the idea that it was INTRODUCED whole-sale as a previously unimaginable possibility in the life of the Church. I have a quote from A.D. 340 that tells priests not to make sins confessed to them public; I have many other quotes which specify as the only necessary component to the practice of penance that it be done to a priest allowing either the common practice of public confession or the less common but acceptable practice of private confession. What was done in the seventh century was a PROMOTION of a practice that was not widely followed in order to foster better direct care for sinners that they could be helped to stop sinning.

[Akalyte]

The attacks just never end huh? I truly believe every church and every religion has problems with the catholic church. debating catholics is pretty much at the top of every protestants list. Ah the joy of the fullness of Truth.

Edited March 29, 2007 by Akalyte

[Mateo el Feo]

I also wanted to address another quote:[quote]Please notice that in the seventh century, private confession was a “new practice.” Subsequently it became more and more popular, but even up to the 12th century, the scholastic theologian Peter the Lombard did not make the mediation of the priest a requirement, but declared that confession to God was sufficient. Furthermore he says that there was no agreement in his time whether confession to a priest was essential. [5][/quote]I actually found a bit of information regarding this particular claim in Dr. Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma." It appears that Peter the Lombard (Petrus Lombardus) believed that the Sacrament of Penance could only be valid when the individual had "perfect contrition" (Ott, Page 430). See the article on [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm"]Contrition at NewAdvent.org (link)[/url] for the difference between perfect and imperfect contrition. The Church isn't so strict as Peter Lombard, and allows a penitent to have imperfect contrition.

Ott refers to the Council of Trent which states:[quote]The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.[/quote]In other words, Peter Lombard is correct that perfect contrition can "reconcile man with God". But (quoting Ott), "Extra-Sacramental justification is effected by perfect sorrow (i.e. contrition) [u]only[/u] when it is associated with the desire for the Sacrament. This is confirmed in the Catholic Catechism, in paragraph 1452:[quote]When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.[/quote]

[Aloysius]

very relevant information crucial in the Catholic understanding of God's forgiveness within and inside the Sacrament of Penance.

I would kindly suggest (though not in any official moderator role) that now that a few adequate answers have been proposed, we do not proceed to pile on more answers until jesussaves has had the oppurtunity to respond. just in the interest of fair-play; I know what it's like to be outnumbered on a board.

[Paladin]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1221680' date='Mar 29 2007, 12:07 AM']very relevant information crucial in the Catholic understanding of God's forgiveness within and inside the Sacrament of Penance.

I would kindly suggest (though not in any official moderator role) that now that a few adequate answers have been proposed, we do not proceed to pile on more answers until jesussaves has had the oppurtunity to respond. just in the interest of fair-play; I know what it's like to be outnumbered on a board.[/quote]
Quite. And in the same gesture of kind suggestion:
[quote name='Aloysius' post='1221664' date='Mar 28 2007, 11:45 PM']I shall let the Fathers of the Council of Trent defeat you.[/quote]
Let us not consider apologetics "defeating" anyone. We're not at war with other Christians. Apologetics is only informing one of the truth, a Spiritual Work of Mercy.

[Aloysius]

I use this language to describe debate. It implies no physical warfare, but simply describes the warfare of words that is debate. I like to keep my language poetic and non-sanitized and stuff like that suggestion just strikes me as political correct sanitization and I will not comply with it. Sorry, but I wholeheartedly believe that the Council Fathers have here and now defeated jesussaves' argument. But let us not divert attention to this trivial linguistic matter in this thread; if you wish we can discuss whether these words are proper to be used in another thread.

[jeffpugh]

Aloysius is not attacking the person but the argument anyways. Jesussaves is a good person anyways. No doubts there. Those were good points, btw. I could use them for engaging with my protestant friend.

[Aloysius]

seeing as jesussaves doesn't post that often here.. I don't want to let the argument be stiffled on my account. perhaps someone could play devil's advocate so that the discussion could hit more interesting points of discussion without jesussaved feeling he is overwhelmed by fifty responses against him lined up in a row each supporting each other.

lalala... or not... whatever. lol

[Mateo el Feo]

I fear that this was just a "hit-and-run" post, cut-and-paste from the justforcatholics.org website. I do wish people would give credit to the actual author (in this case, Joseph Mizzi, apparently).

Let us pray we can save these poor lost souls from the man-made religion of Evangelicalism.

[jesussaves]

my understanding is people confessed in the streets in the early days. i've yet to see anything that says otherwise. i admit the quote i brought said they did penance in the street, which isn't confessing, but that was just a bad example.

I wish people in this forum knew how to present focused information.
Citing Trent, if I am saying Trent contradicts today, is not an argument that addresses my concern.
Citing people who say to confess in some vague form, is not an argument that addresses my concern.
Everything cited on this thread, is not an argument that addresses my concern.
I did see some compelling quotes at catholic.com. none of them talked about private confession. they were only compelling because of the spirit given to the apostles information. i didn't read everything there, so if you see something i'm missing, please present it in a more cogent manner.

beyond my concerns, i think people can retain others sins by not telling them the gospel.
i would be open to saying people can retain others sins by not forgiving them, on a personal level. God has given us permission to hold things against people, but we have to question ourselves if we do. It would be better were we to forgive them.

Edited March 30, 2007 by jesussaves

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1223146' date='Mar 30 2007, 02:20 PM']I wish people in this forum knew how to present focused information.
Citing Trent, if I am saying Trent contradicts today, is not an argument that addresses my concern.
Citing people who say to confess in some vague form, is not an argument that addresses my concern.
Everything cited on this thread, is not an argument that addresses my concern.
I did see some compelling quotes at catholic.com. none of them talked about private confession. they were only compelling because of the spirit given to the apostles information. i didn't read everything there, so if you see something i'm missing, please present it in a more cogent manner.

beyond my concerns, i think people can retain others sins by not telling them the gospel.
i would be open to saying people can retain others sins by not forgiving them, on a personal level. [b]God has given us permission to hold things against people[/b], but we have to question ourselves if we do. It would be better were we to forgive them.[/quote]
When did God give us permission to hold things against people?

[jesussaves]

i stated that poorly. we don't have "permission" but we do have the ability to forgive or not to forgive, on a personal level between the two persons.

whatever the case, that is just a possible interpretation. i maintain that we retain sins by not spreading the gosple.

[Mr.Cat]

Not a single place in the Scriptures are we commanded to pray that our sins in certainty will be forgiven, now we do pray for mercy and the forgiveness of sins but this is not directly commanded. Moreover, it is no where mentioned in the four Gospels or the New Testament. The only means that the Scriptures point to in the forgiveness of serious sins are the Sacraments Baptism and Penance. For the only time where our Lord speaks of forgiving the sins of mankind He breaths on them saying:[quote][b]John 20:21-23[/b]
"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. [b]As the Father hath sent me[/b], [b][u]I also send you[/u][/b]. When he had said this, [b][u]he breathed on them[/u][/b]; and he said to them: [u]Receive ye the Holy Ghost[/u]. [b][u]Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them[/u][/b]; [u]and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained[/u]."
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50020.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50020.htm[/url][/quote]The Church admits that it is possible to have sins forgiven through prayer, in fact any time actual grace is invoked with true sorrow of sin venial sins can be forgiven. But looking to the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition we do not find any other way to have our sins in certainty forgiven. Moreover the verse itself states that whose sins they retain are not forgiven, then in several other places whatever they loosen is loosed. So certainly the authority to forgive sins in the “Persona of Christ” is given to the Apostles and transmitted to the Priesthood today.
[quote][b]Matthew 16:19[/b]
"And I will give to thee the [u]keys of the kingdom of heaven[/u]. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: [b][u]and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven[/u][/b]."
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm[/url][/quote][quote][b]Matthew 18:18[/b]
"Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; [u][b]and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven[/b][/u]."
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47018.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47018.htm[/url][/quote]

Edited March 30, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Brother Adam]

[b]stated that poorly. we don't have "permission" but we do have the ability to forgive or not to forgive, on a personal level between the two persons.

whatever the case, that is just a possible interpretation. i maintain that we retain sins by not spreading the gosple.[/b]

So Jesus gave the apostles the authority not to spread the Gospel? I'm sorry, but that interpretation fails even the most basic Protestant and Catholic exegetical principles. Please don't make things up off the top of your head.

It is very clear that from the quote you gave the researches are not top notch. It took me 2 minutes looking at two basic Christian history texts to find the history of penance in the early Church. [i]Church History[/i] by John Laux and [i]The Faith of the Early Fathers[/i] by Jurgans both cite source examples for the development of confession in the early Church. Al has also done an excellent job of explaining the faith. You should take time to digest it. Penance developed by the confession of serious sins to the bishop along with public penance. After a time as the Church reflected upon her nature and God's will, private repeatable confession was developed. I would encourage the use of reputable, scholarly Protestant research in the future. There is much to be gained by taking the time to dig a little deeper and go a little farther in our study.

Edited March 30, 2007 by Brother Adam

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1223150' date='Mar 30 2007, 02:25 PM']i stated that poorly. we don't have "permission" but we do have the ability to forgive or not to forgive, on a personal level between the two persons.

whatever the case, that is just a possible interpretation. i maintain that we retain sins by not spreading the gosple.[/quote]
We retain the sins of others by not spreading the Gospel? I'm sorry, I don't understand that.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1223146' date='Mar 30 2007, 04:20 PM']Everything cited on this thread, is not an argument that addresses my concern.[/quote]Correct me if I'm wrong, but Dr. Mizzi's argument (and the two bolded sections that you isolated) suggested that a contradiction existed between the Council of Trent and the Catechism. I answered this by noting that Dr. Mizzi does not understand the difference between confession and penance. So my question is: [b]do you understand that Dr. Mizzi made this mistake by confusing confession and penance?[/b]

As for my second post, I apologize for getting off topic, but I thought it was worth rebuking another part of Dr. Mizzi's argument regarding Peter Lombard. You didn't bold it, but you did quote it, and it was another misrepresentation that was easily addressed.

Edited March 30, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[jesussaves]

[quote]Question: In John 20:23, Jesus told the disciples, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." You stated that it is clear that Jesus gave them power to forgive. This verse has never been a clear statement to me. What is the meaning?

Answer: I appreciate your difficulties and problems in understanding John 20:23. I also struggled with its interpretation because I honestly wanted to know its correct meaning. The issue - forgiveness of sins - is absolutely vital to all of us, whether Catholic, Evangelical, and indeed all people. All of us are sinners, all of us need to know how to receive God's gracious pardon.

You write that it has never been a clear statement to you. Oftentimes our religious preconceptions dull our vision. To a Roman Catholic the meaning is "obvious" - Jesus commissioned the priests to perform the sacrament of penance. He does not even realize that the essential aspects of the sacrament such as confession, or hearing confession by a priest, absolution, or performing penance, are not even mentioned. Similarly, an Evangelical sees the power to forgive linked to the preaching of the Gospel. He too does not notice that there is no mention of believing in Jesus or the preaching of the Gospel.

Forget for a moment your preconceptions, and ask yourself: Did Jesus give the apostles the power to remit sins? I trust that you would agree that, yes, a straightforward understanding of "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them" implies that Jesus gave the disciples power to forgive sin.

That leads us to ask another question. He gave them power to forgive, but what KIND of power did he give them? Or to put it in another way, He told them to forgive, but did He also tell them HOW they should forgive?

I don't think it is possible from this verse alone to answer that question. Yes, He gave them power to forgive, but in this context He does not state what kind of power He entrusted to them. We cannot simply assume that it is by absolution or by the preaching of the Gospel. The issue must be decided by referring to other portions of Scripture that deal with the same subject. Specifically we want to know how the apostles remitted sins.

Did the apostles hear confessions and prescribe penance? Did they assume the role of Judges and give judicial sentences in the Name of God (as the Catholic church teaches)? Or did they proclaim the Gospel and assure believers that their sins are forgiven (as Evangelicals teach)?

If you are familiar with the Acts of the Apostles, and the rest of the New Testament, you should have no problem to identify which interpretation is consistent with the rest of the Bible.

In conclusion I say that Jesus gave the disciples power to forgive. This we know from John 20:23. Whether He gave them DECLARATIVE or JUDICIAL power; and whether He made the apostles PREACHERS or JUDGES must be established from the study of the New Testament.[/quote]