The Novelty Of Catholic Confession

[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]

[Mateo el Feo]

jesussaves, are you just going to keep cut-and-pasting from the same website? Wasn't it you who wished that we "knew how to present focused information"? Let's stick to your orignal question, and lay off the cut-and-paste arguments.

Could you please answer my question? It's a simple yes/no answer I'm looking for.

Edited March 30, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]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.[/quote]

To a person who bases the entire faith on the Bible, we as Catholics would look like idiots for saying that confession, absolution, penance, etc., are necessary. However, I want you at least to see that this is consistent with the Catholic basis of the faith. We believe in the Scriptures and in Tradition, that is, we believe that the faith was written down to us as well as handed down to us. Therefore, Scripture can say one thing and Tradition can elaborate or vice-versa. If the early Church practiced the Sacrament of Confession, then it's understandable that St. John wouldn't bother to write about all those things because the faithful would already know about it from the Tradition handed on to them. The absence of something from Scripture doesn't bother us as Catholics, nor should you expect it to, nor should you think we're inferior because of that. We have a good reason for not needing to see it in Scripture. Of course, that goes off on the tangent of Scripture and Tradition, so I won't lay it all out here. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the text you provided, quoted above, seems to think Catholics are silly for believing something not explicit in Scripture, but this is simply because the author lacks understanding of the Catholic idea of Revelation and also lacks the context of Tradition.

God bless,

Micah

[jesussaves]

yes i understand he made a mistake by calling it confession, when it was penance. as i said earlier:
***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.***

Just because he made a mistake doesn't mean they didn't confess in the streets.

And really all this distracts from the fact you can't provide clear proof for private confession early on.

[Budge]

Once before I let the Catholic church I joked and told a priest, you should confess to me too, then we can make this equal.

He didnt take me up on the offer...

I believe Christians should confess sins to one another but this was not supposed to be one guy hearing 100s of people sins, and never sharing his own.

This was supposed to be for ALL CHRISTIANS.

[Aloysius]

jesussaves, confession was made in the churches publically and sometimes privately to the priests. read the link to ECF quotes if you don't believe me; it clearly indicates that both were options.

budge, priest confess to other priests. in the confessional, they represent Christ to you and it is all about you being humble. when they confess to another priest, then they are humbled before him as he represents Christ to them. the idea of christians confessing to other christians is perfectly fine in addition to this practice which keeps us focused on how we should be humble before the judgement of Christ. my friend who is a Christian cannot retain my sins or forgive them on any substantial level which would teach me to be humble before Christ. this sacrament is the way to prepare us to stand before Christ in judgement in a way being honest among Christian friends cannot do.

[jesussaves]

i admit it doesn't exclude the possibility of private confession. and i admit, incidentally it says to confess to a priest. of course, confessing to a priest isn't such a bad idea, given that they are leaders of christians. that doesn't mean what you say it does.

here this. it talks about either confessing publically, or apostizing. it doesn't mention private, but at first glance you might think it does. is this what you thought maybe?
"[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses" (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]).


so, i read it again to no avail. are you trying to avoid that it's not there? is that why you didn't post your clear quote? i am calling you out to show me. now you can call me out and prove me wrong.

[Aloysius]

That specific quote did not seem to refer to private confession to me. It was talking about public confession; I think (though I do not know, I would have to research more about the situation) it is saying that people being to ashamed to publically confess are thereby being pushed into a bad situation whereby they cannot find repentence because they are too ashamed to admit their sins publically. It doesn't refer one way or another to the possibility of private confession; but that does not mean the practice was unknown in those times.

All these quotes established confession to priests as public and/or private. They don't all mention private confession; but they all mention confessing in some way to a priest or in a church. Some proscribe that it be done publically, some suggest that it can also be done privately. These women certainly would have had the ability to come privately to the priest and repent directly to him; but with their public sin he may have suggested public confession and penance for them even if they did. but it is well established that people with private sins could certainly go to the priest and repent to him and receive his blessing and forgiveness on behalf of the whole church.

The most definitive quote that establishes an early tradition of secretive private confession is this:
[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]

in response to your quote at the bottom of the first page: The Acts of the Apostles describes people confessing their sins to the Apostles quite clearly. Again; whether it was publically confessed or privately confessed, these were both options and the important part, shown by the context of the practices starting from the beginning, was that the confession was directed at the apostle or the priest.

Acts of the Apostles: 19:18 And many of those who believed kept coming, and openly confessed their practices.
These confessions were public, but the people came to the apostles in order to confess.

Acts of the Apostles: 19:19 And many who had practised magical arts collected their books and burnt them publicly; and they reckoned up the prices of them, and found the sum to be fifty thousand pieces of silver
This was their public penance

There were public confessions made to the apostles and the ministers they ordained. It seems quite likely that if there were crowds coming to the Apostles to confess, there would also occassionally be individuals who approached them and other ministers in repentence alone. Did no one ever speak to an Apostle or a minister individually? Did no one ever repent to them without a large crowd present? If it was common for the crowds to come to confess their faults and sins, why would not individuals do so as well?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1223377' date='Mar 30 2007, 10:24 PM']And really all this distracts from the fact you can't provide clear proof for private confession early on.[/quote]I read your quotation, and you made a specific claim; I focused on your bold text. I don't think you should fault me for sticking to the question, right after complaining that people don't know how to focus on a question. Either you want us to stick to the question or you do not.

Now, you've got a new request, to "provide clear proof for private confession early on." Well, let me start with a couple links at Catholic.com:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Confession.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Confession.asp[/url]

In addition to links, I'd like to cite a specific quote from Pope St. Leo the Great, (Letter [i]Magna indign[/i]., to the bishops of Campania, March 6, 459 AD):[quote]I also decree that that presumption against the apostolic regulation, which I recently learned is being committed by some through unlawful usurpation, be banished by all means.

With regard to penance, what is demanded of the faithful, is clearly not that an acknowledgement of the nature of individual sins written in a little book be read publicly, [b]since it suffices that the states of consciences be made known to the priests alone in secret confession[/b]. For although the fullness of faith seems to be laudable, which on account of the fear of God is not afraid to blush before men, nevertheless since the sins of all are not such that those who ask for penance do not dread to publish them, so objectionable a custom should be abolished...[b]For that confession is sufficient, which is first offered to God, then also to a priest, who serves as an intercessor for the transgressions of the penitents[/b]. For then, indeed, more will be able to be incited to penance, if the conscience of the one confessing is not exposed to the ears of the people.[/quote]This is found in [url="http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Catholic-Dogma-Henry-Denzinger/dp/1930278225/"]Denzinger's "Sources of Catholic Dogma", page 59[/url]. I hope you'll agree that the quote is quite clear.

First, in my own opinion, it could be argued (by reading between the lines) that mandating public confessions of all sin was seen as an oddity, maybe even a relatively localized practice. I suggest this also, because he is addressing this letter to a particular region's bishops (i.e. Campania in Italy), though it is clear that he is suggesting universal instructions. If this were occurring throughout Christendom, one would expect that he would address the letter to all bishops. BTW, this isn't such a strange request, because he had addressed some of his epistles to a wider audience than just one region's bishops.

Second, there is no indication that private confession is Pope St. Leo's own innovation. Confession to a priest is an assumption of the text, with no indication that anyone questioned the practice. Only the step of publicly revealing those sins (which was occuring after the confession to a priest) is being criticized as a "presumption against the apostolic regulation" that should be "banished by all means."

Finally (a little off topic), I'd like to focus on the common sense in the last statement. Pope St. Leo knew that--where it was practiced--mandating public confession would discourage people from confessing their sins. The early Church was wise enough to recognize the problems caused by making all sin public. Those who were most honest about their sins would be treated poorly by their neighbors (e.g. be subject to gossip); something like the Puritans in the Scarlet Letter. Quite a disincentive to be honest about one's sins.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[Mateo el Feo]

Bump for jesussaves...

[jesussaves]

Yes the last two quotes from Al and you are both compelling. Those are the only things that have been compelling thus far. They are from post 350, but I would imagine if private confession was occurring then, it'd be occurring at least some before that. The question becomes when did it start and if it's always been.
I do admit you have arguably sufficient circumstantial evidence for early privat confession.

I do wonder though, whether the priest was actually forgiving the sins. As your quote indicates, he was an interceder, which doesn't preclude forgiving, but it may not be what you imagine either.