Hello One and All,
My first comment is to Tina. I like how you pointed out:
When I sin against God, against myself, against another person, or just in general, I consider it not just against that particular person/diety, but also against the Body of Christ (the church). By sinning, I have spiritually hurt the Body.
I think St. Paul backs up your position in 1Cor 12:24-25:
"But God has so adjusted the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
To Ayodhya,
I will start by presenting some quotes from scripture. You have already either quoted them or alluded to them, so I know you are already aware of them. Nevertheless, it would be good to have them plainly displayed for the sake of my post.
Gospel of John (20:22-23):
And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."Letter of James (5:14-16)
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the eldars of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if has commited sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, that you may be healed.In light of the passage from John, you stated,
The first thing we must notice is that these words were not spoken only to the apostles or to any other special class, but to all Christ's followers who were together at that time. Remitting sins is therefore not a privilege of the clergy, but extended to all believers.
To begin with, the only person who is specifically named in that gathering is "Thomas, one of the Twelve" (Jn 20:24). Therefore, we know that an apostle specifically received this ability concerning the remission of sins. The others present are simply collectively referred to as "disciples" (Jn 20:19). Apparently, your position is that because John said "disciples" and not "apostles", he was saying that a variety of Jesus' followers were present, not just the apostles.
If this was being described in one of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) then you may have a point. I say that because Matthew, Mark and Luke tend to use "apostle" to distinguish between the Twelve and the other followers of Jesus. But John
never does this. If you look up the words "apostle" and "apostles" in a biblical conscordance, you will see that these words never appear in John. John preferred to use "disciple" to collectively describe any follower of Jesus, be they members of the Twelve or not.
This does not mean that to John there was no difference, for we still see the prominent role the Twelve played presented in his gospel. Peter, for example, receives the mandate to feed Jesus' lambs (Jn 21:15 ff). The reason that John elected not to use the term "apostle" was because the earlier gospels stressed church structure, community and heirarchy. John, a mystic, wanted to balance this out with the importance of a personal, intimate relationship with God. So he downplayed images of church structure and hierarchy and one of the ways he did this was to toss the word "apostle." It was not that he was denying these things, he just wanted to create a balance.
So my point here is that when John said that the disciples were present when Jesus commissioned them to forgive or retain sins, one cannot conclude that a mixture of disciples and apostles were present. Nor is this proof that a non-disciple received the commission. The room could have only contained the Twelve and John, according to his style, would still call them "disciples." That is what he did with the apostles elsewhere in his gospel.
The Catholic Church's position was that only the apostles received this commission. This comes to us through Apostolic Teaching and it does not matter if it is not expressly stated as such in the bible. The bible only contains a portion of Apostolic Teaching and no gospel writer claimed to have recorded everything Jesus said, did and taught. John admits that he did not, and says that such an undertaking would be impossible (Jn 21:25).
Going back to the above quoted passage from John, you gave your interpretation of it as follows:
In addition, we must ask, how did those who were present and heard Christ's words interpret them? What did they do to obey? They evidently understood that sins are forgiven when people trust in Christ as savior, because they went out and preached the good news that by trusting in Christ Jesus we have the forgiveness of sin (Acts 2:37-38, 10:43).
Jesus told them that whoever sins they forgive are forgiven and whoever sins they retain are retained. Based upon your interpretation, how does an apostle tell someone that their sins are retained? Your interpretation only addresses half of the commission, the forgiveness of sins.
They did not go out and listen to confessions, nor tell anyone that they themselves were remitting sins. The book of Acts is the history of what the early Christians did, and how God worked through them to spread the Gospel in that time. If you are still in doubt, a careful study of this book will convince you.
No, a careful examination of this book will not convince me. The apostles did hear confessions and they did forgive sins. Just because it was not specifically recorded in Acts does not mean that it did not happen. Luke never claimed that his book was a complete concise record of the Early Church. Catholics know what the apostles did because the apostles told us in their Apostolic Teaching. This teaching has been preserved and handed down in the Magesterium of the Church, under the guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit. So as far as Catholics are concerned, God said that the apostles heard confessions and granted absolution. This is a part of Sacred Tradition, so to us it is as authentic as Sacred Scripture.
Furthermore, you stated:
If we have sinned against some person, the Bible teaches us to ask that person's forgiveness also. Therefore if I have sinned against a priest, I should confess that sin to him as well as to God. There are also times that we need to talk to someone else about what we have done.
In the passage from the Letter of James that I presented above, we see him describing an event of both healing and the forgiveness of sins occuring in the presence of "eldars" (i.e., presbyters). It has always been the Catholic Church's stance that these are early church references to priests, and the Church to this day uses the term "presbyter" interchangably with "priest." The New Testament writers preferred the term "presbyter" over priest because in those days there was still a very prominent Jewish and pagan priesthood, and they did not want their priests to be confused with those of the Jews and pagans.
You also stated,
You may ask, "Do we need to confess our sins, or not?" Yes! Every Christian should confess his sins, but our confessions should not be made to man because only God has the power to forgive.
Well, as we now see, the Letter of James specifically tells us to confess our sins to one another. Also, I agree that God only has the power to forgive sins. But what about the power of God to heal and raise the dead? The apostles and prophets healed and raised the dead, but by your argument, people should not have gone to these men for healing, but should have gone to God, because that is the power of God. In addition to this, we hear many stories today of preachers performing faith healings. Some of these may be shams, but I think that many are true miracles. But using your argument, people should not go to faith healers for healing.
Do faith healers personally heal people? Did the prophets and the apostles? No, God healed through them. So if God can, and does, heal through preachers then why can't He forgive sins through priests?
This was the normal way in which Christians confessed their sins in the first centuries of the church. Confession to the priest became official Catholic doctrine in 1225 A.D. Priests had started hearing confessions some time before this, but they prayed to God for the person rather than claiming to remit the sins themselves, as they do now.
First of all, what is your source for this 1225 reference? Even though the sacraments, such as Penance, have been with us since the beginning, they can develop over time as the church delves deeper into the mystery that they are. Therefore, throughout history, the Church will occasionally make statements of clarification, affirmation, or address new topics such as liturgical proceedures and rites. I am willing to bet that whatever this 1225 reference is, it falls under this category.
Secondly, before a person receives absoultion in Confession, he first makes an Act of Contrition. This is a prayer, addressed to God, which expresses sorrow for one's sins and the promise to strive to avoid them in the future. So the idea that a person does not pray to God or ask forgiveness from God in Confession is false. Furthermore, the priest absolves the person in the name of Christ, while acting in the person of Christ, by virtue of his ordination. You seem to have an impression that a confessional is where a person and a priest get together and hash out all this person's sins to the exclusion of God. That is not the case. The person confesses his sins to God in the presence of the priest, and God absolves him through the priest.
Thirdly, if it is still your belief that prior to A.D. 1225 priests did not claim to remit sins, then consider this passage written by Cyprian of Cartage in A.D. 251 (from "The Lapsed," 28 ff.):
Finally, of how much greater faith and more salutary fear are they who, though bound by no sacrifice or certificate, but since they did not take thought of doing such a thing, confess even this to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. Thus they remove the weight from their souls and seek the saving remedy for their wounds however small and slight they be... I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sins while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissable, while satisfaction and remission made through the priests are pleasing before the Lord.Here, writing in A.D. 251, Cyprian clearly tells people to confess their sins to priests, and he clearly states that remission for sins may be achieved through priests.
In addition to this, in A.D. 338, Ambrose of Milan wrote the following concerning Penance (in his work "Penance," 1:1)
For those to whom [the right of binding and loosing] has been given, it is plain that either or both are allowed, or it is clear that neither is allowed. Both are allowed to the Church, and neither is allowed to heresy. For this right has been granted to priests alone.And now I will make a final clarification about the Sacrament of Penance. For members of the Catholic Faith who have been properly taught about the sacraments, they are bound by them. The Sacrament of Penance is only necessary for the forgiveness of a serious sin (a.k.a., "mortal sin" - such as murder, fornication, rape, adultery, the theft of something exceedingly valuable, etc.). John gives us a distinction between "mortal" sins and those that aren't "mortal" (1Jn 5:16).
In Catholic terminology, a sin that is not mortal is called "venial." This does not have to be confessed in the presence of a priest. One can confess it to God at any place or time with an Act of Contrition. Furthermore, the power of the Mass absolves the venial sins of those who receive Mass who are not guilty of serious sin. Those who are guilty of serious sin can attend Mass, but should not receive the Eucharist until they have gone to Confession with a priest and received absolution.
Of course, a venial sin is still a bad thing, but the idea is that it damages but does not disrupt one's relationship with God. Venial sins can still land you into hell, though, which is why some form of penance is important, either in the confessional or out of it. A serious/mortal sin, however, disrupts one's relationship with God to the point that penance is required in a sacramental fashion (i.e., the Sacrament of Penance).
But even though, strickly speaking, no one needs to confess venial sins in Confession, it is still a good idea. This is because the Sacramental Graces from Confession help empower the person to resist those venial sins in the future.
Ok, I think that's it for now.
God bless,
-Rev. Eric
The Glorify God Community
Author
