[display_podcast]
Join Michael Patton, Tim Kimberley, JJ Seid and Sam Storms as they continue their series on Roman Catholicism by discussing the Sacraments.
|
|
[display_podcast]
Join Michael Patton, Tim Kimberley, JJ Seid and Sam Storms as they continue their series on Roman Catholicism by discussing the Sacraments.
|
|
42 replies to "Theology Unplugged: Roman Catholicism – Part 14 – Sacraments"
Two things right now, then I’ve got to think about all those analogies!
One is it seems you are confusing penance with Penance. I think you are famiar with “T” and “t” tradition. Well, you could say there is “P” and “p” penance. “P” is “The Sacrament of Penance” which is confession and absolution, and also involves performing a “p” penance assigned by the priest. The “Sacrament of Penance” is more commonly called the “Sacrament of Reconciliation” or just plain “Confession”. “p” penance can mean many different things, such as what you do after confession, or what you do for an indulgence, or good works or self denial you do to help bring the body into submission to the soul, etc. Anyway, there is a common noun penance, and a proper noun Penance. The proper noun Penance is just short for The Sacrament of Penance. You were making them equal which would lead to all kinds of confusions.
The second thing is that it seemed toward the end you all settled on Baptism giving forgiveness of mortal sins and the rest giving forgiveness of remaining venial sins. This is very wrong. Baptism forgives mortal and venial sin (and all the temporal punishment for both!). Reconciliation forgives mortal and venial sin (and at least part of the temporal sin for both). The Eucharist forgives venial sin, but if you receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin, you are committing another mortal sin and doing yourself a world of harm! It does sound complicated, but it’s really not, when you learn the nature and function of each sacrament.
Now to think about websites and vitamins…(:
St. Paul said that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” “The wages of sin are death”.
They are ALL mortal sins.
But in our Baptisms, we were put to death (Romans 6).
So now, “we are to consider ourselves dead to sin.” Because of what Christ did for us on the cross. He brought that cross to bear in our personal histories, in real time, in our Baptisms. And it carries us all throughout our lives. it’s not just a one time event that we move away from.
That’s why it’s such “good news”!
Here is something, as a Catholic, I would like to understand better:
What, in your mind, is the difference between “sacrament” and “ordinance”? You mentioned it just for a second at the very end, but not enough for me to get it.
When I hear sacrament relabeled as ordinance, it sounds like taking something God is using to give us grace and forgiveness, and turning it into a work that we should do just because God said to?… That sounds so contradictory with what Protestants claim to stand for. See why I’m kind of perplexed?
For a specific example of this, take infant baptism. Catholics (and others! including Lutherans!) know baptism to be a wonderful grace for the infant. Not knowing anything or doing anything, the infant is washed from all sin, and all punishment for sin. Made a child of God. What grace!
But then a Protestant comes along and says no, baptism is an ordinance. A command for a public profession, or whatever.
So who is denying the grace and creating a good work here?
Anyway, I don’t understand exactly what you mean when you say “ordinance”.
Irene,
I think your statement of “It does sound complicated, but it’s really not, when you learn the nature and function of each sacrament.” says volumes about this. All of us can read the Bible. We know what the Bible says specifically about these topics. Specifically that God alone forgives sin, not the practicing of any religious sacrament/ordinance.
Baptism without a confession of faith is no different than taking a bath. Notice that all the baptisms were preceded by faith. Without faith there is no forgiveness of sins.
Where exactly do you source that the Lord’s supper forgives sin? All of the Gospels speak of remembrance, not forgiveness. Paul speaks of not taking in an unworthy manner, specifically like a drunkard or glutton in context as they were having an actual meal, and speaks of remembrance. Nothing is said of the taking of the Lord’s supper as imparting forgiveness.
You may have to elaborate more on the p/Penance. Does Christ forgive sins of those who believe? If he does, then why do you need a penance? Can you pay God back for this forgiveness? If you mean penance as something more akin to help bring body/soul/mind into submission with Christ, that is cool and completely understandable. I am a full supporter of confession and repentance. For spiritual health and growth, we must confess our sins when recognized and put them to death and turn away from them. This may involve restitution to parties harmed by your actions as a way to heal and ask for forgiveness, but no restitution will pay God back for Christ’s death.
I am also fully on board with theoldadam as all sins are mortal sins. This arbitrary spiritual court that attempts to judge between “minor” and “major” sins is ridiculous. I fully understand the concept that some sins are more destructive spiritually/physically/relationally than others, but based on what I read about the difference I am having a hard time coming up with something that constitutes…
We Lutherans look at Baptism as sacrament. A promise of loyalty (sacramentum) to us, the sinner.
The difference between Lutherans and Catholics, is that in Lutheranism the promise covers ALL sin before…and AFTER Baptism.
Which is MORE gracious than, “well…now you are sinning again so we need to mediate more grace to you”
Catholics are faced with the impossibility of substituting the abstract for the concrete. All analogies are abstract; whereas, Being is the elusive concrete which can only be ascertained by a concrete act of faith. Balthazar identified this praxis as the reciprocating act of love, which is and can only be concretized by the kenosis of God incarnate in and through Jesus His Only Begotten Son—to which, I agree. However—and this is a BIG HOWEVER—this in practice can only be accessed conceptually through an apposite and appropriating faith. Apposite in the sense that it is suitable to the subject under consideration; and appropriating in the sense that it is a given as is evidenced through its revelatory nature. The convergence of God’s grace and the act of faith is the meeting point for all theological truth. Jesus, who is the very image of God singularly exemplified this and thereby through the act of God’s gift offers a generous hope that we, too, may attain to His likeness. (Romans 8:28-29) Now, lest we become sidetracked, I refer my comment back to the original statement (above) about the impossibility of substituting the abstract for the concrete, which I feel Catholics do in insisting on not just the presence of the Holy Spirit (in the Trinitarian sense) but in the concrete sense of the incarnation in the Eucharist. Thus, it seems to me that the commemorative nature of the ordinance is thereby sacrificed in practice by insisting on the literal body and blood of our Savior whereby we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:10)
Chad asked in #6,
–“Can you pay God back for this forgiveness?”–
No, Catholics don’t believe that. If we could pay God back, we wouldn’t have needed forgiveness in the first place. In Jesus’s sacrifice, we have received a gift of infinite value, which we finite creatures could never muster up ourselves.
–“If you mean penance as something more akin to help bring body/soul/mind into submission with Christ, that is cool and completely understandable.”–
Yeah, that is more like it. Spiritual exercise, like fasting, prayer,good works, and almsgiving. It can also be to satisfy simple justice, as in, giving back what you have stolen, or doing what you can to repair the reputation of someone you have lied about. The priest assigns some type of penance after confession (now days it’s typically very simple like certain prayers. in the early church, penance was really tough!!) This penance is to help repair the damage done by the sin just confessed. The old example is of sin being like a nail in us, the wood. When we are forgiven, the nail is removed (the guilt), but there is still a hole in the wood. We, or others, are damaged by the sin and need healing.
“p” PENance is like rePENtance lived out. Always converting more and more away from sin and toward God. Could be on our own behalf or on behalf of others (as in the case of indulgences, but that is getting into a communion of saints issue…)
theoldadam,
You mentioned the Lutheran belief that baptism covers all sins, before and after baptism. I remember always wondering, if that is so, then why does each worship service begin with confession and absolution? I never was clear on the relationship there.
Chad,
You said that anyone can read the Bible and see that only God forgives sin.
John 20:21-23 Jesus said to [the disciples] again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 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.”
Also, all sins are not deadly/mortal sins.
1 John 5:17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not deadly.
Baptism “before faith”
Here’s how that fits into the Catholic paradigm. Any adult must have faith before receiving baptism. A lack of faith in their case would be an obstacle to the graces recieved in baptism. In the case of an infant, though, since they are so young and unable to even reason, the infant presents absolutely no obstacle to the graces of baptism.
Eucharist forgives sins-
I suppose this goes back to a traditional interpretation of the words of institution, “shed for many for the forgiveness of sins” and “given up for us”. This was the application of these words up through at least Luther, who taught the same thing. If you say otherwise, theologically you’re kind of in no man’s land, historically speaking.
St Ambrose: “For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord’s death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy.”
I think that something that gets “lost in translation” in regards to Confession is that the sacramennt also reconciles the individual to their church community.
There are no 100 percent “individual” sins.
In the early church, which practiced Confession, you automatically ex-communicated yourself from the Church if you missed 3 consecutive Sunday liturgies (for no good reason).
The point is that Confession has always served as a means of reconciliation between God and fellow Christians.
Irene,
Because we don’t live today on yesterday’s faith.
We constantly need to be kept in faith. The sins ARE forgiven “It is finished”.
But we need to trust in that Word of forgiveness. We don’t need to pony up…but we need to be constantly kept in faith through hearing the law and the gospel and receiving His Supper and returning to our baptisms…daily.
Theoldadam,
This is more than a reminder.
Upon this your confession, I, by virtue of my office, as a called and ordained servant if the Word, announce the grace of God unto all of you, and in the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Irene,
My point about paying God back for forgiveness has everything to do with the assignment of penance. A priest assigning you something to do is a penalty that must be paid for this forgiveness. This is the very same reason why it is odd that the priest sits in the way of the forgiveness. You do not need an intermediary apart from Christ to be granted the forgiveness of sins. Now, do I feel that talking your sins out with someone is good and beneficial, yes. Do I think discussing appropriate things to do to help bring mind/body/soul into submission is good, yes. Do I think someone else assigning penalties is beneficial, no. It looks like a penalty and an obstacle to forgiveness.
So, the claim is that Jesus granted the disciples the ability to justify others? This would be granted by your logic in that verse to all those who have the Holy Spirit, so anyone who is a believer could justify others before God. We can all declare everyone else righteous and innocent? Would it not make more sense that this Jesus sending them to preach forgiveness via the Gospel to the world? Just like the keys of heaven do not mean that they can willy nilly make declarations, but through the Spirit, God will reveal on earth what has been true in heaven.
So a lack of faith on one hand is an obstacle, but not on another with baptism? At what age does this happen? Do you have Scripture to support this view? If it is truly grace, then NOTHING we can do will stand in the way of it, because grace is a free gift of God.
Yes, Irene, I understand not all sins are deadly. Specifically those that are forgiven through faith in Christ. To hold that this means there are some level of sins that will not “kill you” is contrary to Scripture in other places. You will have to specify more of what you mean here.
Eucharist symbolism will have to wait for a different post as I am out of characters in this one.
Thanks, Irene.
I always need to hear it.
Your sins are forgiven, for Jesus’ sake, also.
And it is not dependent upon what ‘we do’. or ‘don’t do’.
But we do need to hear it. And receive it in Baptism and His Supper. But this is His work…not ours.
Theoldadam,
I have warm spot in my heart for the Lutheran church. I remember then, that being Lutheran was kind of like being in the middle. Catholics look and call you “Protestant”. The larger Protestant body would look at you and say you were still clinging too much to Catholic ideas.
I don’t underestimate the differences between Catholics and Lutherans. There are some deep differences there, especially beneath the surface. However, the Lutheran church still stands as a witness that being Protestant does not mean rejecting the sacraments. At the Reformation, there were huge disagreements about the administration of the sacraments, but the concept of a sacrament, with an earthly element, as a means of real grace, was not rejected. The idea of sacrament continued to be held as essential. It’s only when we get farther downstream, historically, that the idea of sacrament is rejected by newer evangelical churches.
Something else to consider: the etymology of the word “symbolic”:
symbol (n.) literally “that which is thrown or cast together,” from syn- “together” (see syn-) + bole “a throwing, a casting, the stroke of a missile, bolt, beam,” from bol-, nominative stem of ballein “to throw” (see ballistics). … The meaning “something which stands for something else” was first recorded in 1590 (in “Faerie Queene”).
When the ancient eastern (Greek-speaking) Church used the work “symbol”, it meant “two elements joined together”. So when they discussed the Holy Mystery (Sacrament) of the Eucharist as being a “symbol”, it meant that they believed that it was both the body and blood of Christ, and bread and wine.
Notice that the modern meaning of “symbol” as “representing something else” didn’t evolve until the late 16th century.
And, what is the opposite of symbolic? Diabolic!
Pete again,
Yes, I am using symbol in the modern sense, but I am not arguing against its definition in the Bible as the verses I am discussing do not actually use the word symbol. It was certainly an interesting bit of trivia to know. I guess I could have substituted the phrase “Eucharist representational imagery” instead if that would have made you feel better.
Irene,
When Jesus declares that this is His body and blood, does he mean literally or figuratively? Perhaps you can argue either way (transsub, consub, or whatever we call just bread and wine). My point still stands, of whether it is done in any way that imparts forgiveness. We are commanded to do this in a way that is in remembrance of Christ, and thus in the remembrance of Christ’s death, and thus in the remembrance of the forgiveness purchased by the broken body and spilled blood of Christ. But does any partaking of it actually impart the forgiveness? Christ offered the sacrifice one time for all forgiveness of our sins (Hebrews 10:12-14). If we are being sanctified, we are forgiven already. We are justified before the Lord. The forgiveness has already been imparted, and we are commanded to remember the sacrifice in the meal of the Lord’s Supper. Whether we view the body and blood as the actual body and blood or a representation of the body and blood, the act of eating it does not impart the forgiveness, otherwise we have to make rules as to why everyone cannot just eat it and be forgiven. Perhaps we are really talking past each other about what it truly means to remember the forgiveness purchased by the body and blood of Christ.
Irene,
You are spot on.
Far too many (maybe ALL) Evangelicals reject a real presence of Christ in the sacraments.
So the whole project inevitably turns inward.
The freedom of the Christian is to turn away from self and trying to ascend the spirituality ladder. And outward, rather, to the neighbor.
Thanks.
Hi again Chad,
About the forgiveness of sins–
I pointed out in #8
John 20:21-23 Jesus said to [the disciples] again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 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.”
You responded in #12
“So, the claim is that Jesus granted the disciples the ability to justify others? This would be granted by your logic in that verse to all those who have the Holy Spirit, so anyone who is a believer could justify others before God. We can all declare everyone else righteous and innocent? Would it not make more sense that this Jesus sending them to preach forgiveness via the Gospel to the world?”
If it is as you say, then what is retaining sins about?
It seems pretty clear to me that these verses are about actually forgiving sin, as opposed to preaching the Gospel.
The reason this doesn’t apply to anyone who “has the Holy Spirit” is this was spoken to just the apostles, in a locked room, on Easter Sunday night. Not as part of the Sermon on the Mount given to the masses. The apostles received the Holy Spirit in a particular way for a particular reason that night. Jesus didn’t appear in a locked room after being killed to tell them, “Guys, you know, it’s a good thing to talk to each other about your sins.”
James-the-lesser,
Maybe it just wouldn’t work, but if possible, could you dumb down your comment #6 for me? (:
Irene,
It is correct that Jesus only gave the apostles (and not all of them as Thomas was not there, and not Judas obviously) this discourse that night. Yet they were granted the Holy Spirit, the indwelling of God in each of us. So is this them acting out of a human ability granted to them, or the Holy Spirit acting through them via the preaching and teaching of the Gospel? If it is the Holy Spirit, then in fact it is God forgiving the sin. In fact we have John state in 1 John 1:9 that Jesus is the one who is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. If John had this power, why would he not tell people that he could do it as well?
Either way, in what way does this allow a priest to grant forgiveness? If the verse you cited does not apply to those who have the Holy Spirit, and only to the apostles, then they are all dead and it is pointless to bring them into a discussion about priestly powers?
Further, Jesus didn’t just appear in the room with them to say “forgive some people, or maybe not. You decide.” Jesus appeared to show them the risen Christ, to show the infallible Word of God, to show them the glory prepared for them before the foundations of the world, to show them that death had been conquered, to show them that the Risen Lord had completed his mission and to send them on their mission, to bestow upon them the Counselor Christ had promised, etc.
When you have time, would you mind addressing any of the others points I have made concerning the sacraments I mentioned? We can even skip the Ordination/Marriage arguments that I just can’t fathom the logic behind.
Chad,
You approach the Bible like you are a Muslim, as if the Bible was the Koran: the exact words from God, dictated word for word to the prophet.
The Bible is NOT the Koran. Jesus Christ did not come to earth and distribute Bibles. He founded the Church.
This is some of the historical witness of the Church regarding Confession:
+++ The Didache (1st century A.D.): In the congregation, confess your sins; do not come to your prayer with an evil conscience.
+++ Ignatius of Antioch (30-107 A.D) Epistle to the Philadelphians, chapter 8: “All that repent will be forgiven by the Lord, provided they repent in unity of Christ our God and in front of an assembly of a bishop”.
+++ Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 2:2-3 (95 A.D.): “An abundant outpouring also of the Holy Spirit Fell upon all (during the worship service); and, being full of holy counsel, in excellent zeal and with a pious confidence ye stretched out your hands to Almighty God, supplicating Him to be merciful, if ye had committed any sin.”
+++ Cyprian of Carthage (circa 250 A.D.): “I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sins while he is still in this world – while his confession can still be received and while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are still pleasing to the Lord.”
+++ Origen, (185 – 254 AD) 5th speech on Leviticus: “Hence, according to the one Who gave Priesthood to the Church, the clergymen and the priests can receive the sins of the people and, imitating their Teacher, give remission of sins”.
+++ John Chrysostom, De Poenitentia 3, 1 PG 49:292: “Have you committed a sin? Then enter the Church and repent of your sin. For here is the Physician, not the judge; here one is not investigated but receives remission of sins.”
Chaed, The Protestant Reformation created a new strain of Christianity. There was no “Confession controversy” in the Church until the Protestants came along.
Pete again,
I don’t know where you get the impression that I think that the exact words of God were transcribed down. I also don’t know what your entire post is directed at refuting. Are you trying to state that those men indicate that you must confess your sins to a priest? Chrysostom would indicate that you enter the Church (the people are the Church, not the building) and repent of your sin. I do believe confession needs to be both public and private. Confess your sins to God, and confess your sins to others. I am not really sure what “Confession controversy” you are referring to.
@Chad#20,
Q: So is this them acting out of a human ability granted to them, or the Holy Spirit acting through them via the preaching and teaching of the Gospel?
A: Yes, only God forgives sin, but he makes priests his instruments in the Sacrament of Penance. Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1441 explains it well: “Only God forgives sins. Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, ‘The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins’ and exercises this divine power: ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.” (in John 20:21-23)
Q: If the verse you cited does not apply to those who have the Holy Spirit, and only to the apostles, then they are all dead and it is pointless to bring them into a discussion about priestly powers?
A: This is where apostolic succession and the office of the priesthood come in. When Jesus established the church, he set the apostles in positions of authority. Even though the apostles are gone, their positions, their “offices”, still exist. Like when the founders established the USA, they established the office of the president. The occupant of the office changes, but the power stays with the office. This is what Jesus referred to when he said to listen to those who sit “in the seat of Moses” (Now, we have the seats of the apostles instead.)
Q: Further, Jesus didn’t just appear in the room with them to say “forgive some people, or maybe not. You decide.”
A: Actually, he kind of did. I think it’s a fulfillment of when in the Old Testament, the people with skin diseases would have to present themselves to the priests to decide if they were clean or not, and then to be declared clean. Let me ask you, why does Jesus talk about retaining sins in John 20?
Yes, I’ll certainly discuss other sacraments you addressed. Which one first?
John Chrysostom, 86th speech on The Priesthood: “Great is the value of the priests. Those whose sins you loose, He says, they are loosed. Neither angels nor archangels can do something like that but the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit determine everything … And the priest lends his tongue and his hand to the Holy Trinity, so that the sins of the people can thus be forgiven”.
Chad, it is incorrect to believe that St. John Chysostom did not practice the mystery of Reconciliation with his parish. You are entitled to your own opinions on this blog, but not your own version of the facts.
The Credo house has a nice Church History package that you should probably put on your wish list:
http://store.reclaimingthemind.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=bc%2Dchurchhistory%2Dbox
Pete again,
You are entitled to your own opinions on many things, but you continue to state my beliefs that I have not articulated. Thanks for stating things that way though, it is reassuring that you are actually reading what I write instead of assuming what you want. Nowhere did I state that Chrysostom did not meet with people and tell them of the reconciliation found in Christ. I merely stated that your quote of his from earlier indicates that you would enter the Church (the people of God) and repent your sins, because in the Church, the Physician is found. The Physician being Christ, not a priest. You may assume whatever you wish after that.
I am not a church history student, which is why I have not stated that these things have not happened in the past or that those in the past didn’t believe them. My statements have been directed at the source for this information. What source indicates that you MUST confess your sins to a priest to have your sins forgiven? Heck, we can even start with what source indicates the qualifications for a priest? What “power” gives the priest this ability and to where is it sourced?
My point has been and will remain that these people that you quote from are men, not God. You may treat them as infallible sources of wisdom to your own destruction, but I will not. Where their words do not meet with Scripture, we depart. Where their words try to enforce something upon Scripture or those who follow Scripture that is not from Scripture, we depart.
So I must ask, can you confess your sins and be forgiven in the absence of a priest? Why or why not?
Irene,
I will answer your post a bit later today, but you are welcome to start with whichever sacrament you wish to discuss first.
Irene, #23
Seat of Moses:
The seat of Moses reference that you used is from Matthew 23 I believe. An entire chapter that condemns the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocritical and religious practices. The easiest understanding of Moses’s seat, in my opinion, is that Jesus is telling them to obey the Law and not the extra laws and regulations that the scribes and Pharisees created with their religious practices. I don’t really see that being a support for the creation of enduring apostolic offices.
I also do not believe that the “office” of apostle is still available or attainable for very simple reasons. All of the apostles were eyewitnesses to the Risen Lord, which no one alive today is. They were hand selected by Jesus, or through direct intervention of the Spirit to replace Judas. I believe the office is closed by virtue of those characteristics alone. That aside, the apostles had the ability and authority to write Scripture and were the equivalent of the OT prophets. The gift of the Holy Spirit to all believers has ceased the offices of apostle/prophet.
Sins are forgiven:
My question in all of this is, do we have any evidence from any of the apostles that they believed they could actually forgive sin? Or do we have evidence that leads us to the conclusion that they would share the forgiveness found in Christ, those who accept are forgiven, those who do not are withheld? If we were to view justification on this level, it would have to be viewed as a spiritual gift, yet I have not found any references to this in Scripture.
I am running out of space to talk about OT Priest roles for now, so I will have to address that in another post, probably tomorrow. However, let me pose the same question I asked to Pete again. Can you confess your sins and be forgiven in the absence of a priest? Why or why not?
“Can you confess your sins and be forgiven in the absence of a priest? Why or why not?”
A: Christians need both private and public repentence.
This is based upon Jesus’ teachings that encouraged His followers to walk in the light together, to confront problems corporately, to “tell it to the church” (Matthew 18:17).
The only specific examples the New Testament gives regarding the act of confession of sin are PUBLIC confession:
“James 5:16: “Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. ”
“Acts 19:18: And many who had believed (who were already Christians) came confessing and telling their deeds.”
Jesus gave his Disciples – the Church’s first elders – the specific power of hearing confessions and forgiving the sins of fellow Christians:
“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 them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
“Matthew 18:18: Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind (do not forgive) on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose (forgive) on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
For 1,500 years the Church practiced the “laying of the hands”, the physical act of bestowing ordination on bishops, priests and deacons. This can be seen in the New Testament, and throughout Church history.
“Stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands” (2 Timothy 1:6). It is the grace of the Holy Spirit that enables the priest to serve God and the people, not any personal holiness.
Can you confess to God privately? Of course! But that doesn’t mean that public confession is thrown out. “If we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged” (1 Corinthians 11:31).
For 1,400 years, until Roman Catholics invented the confession booth, Christians confessed up in front of the church with the priest to the side.
One more note on Confession: to try to justify the rejection of all forms of public sacramental repentance, the 16th century Protestant Reformers cited the following passage (as do today’s Protestants):
“1 Timothy 2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
The orthodox, early Christian interpretation of this passage is that Paul is talking about SALVATION, and the absolutely unique role of Jesus Christ in this process, rather than confession of sins. Nowhere in the rest of the chapter does Paul mention confession of sins, or connect the meaning of the verse to a public or private act of confession.
Here is the passage in context:
“1 Timothy 2:1-6: Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”
Chad, I don’t quote the early Christian leaders because they are “infallible”. I quote them to give you a snapshot throughout Church history of what was practiced.
If all Church history shows that throughout the world, through the centuries, the Church believed in “A”, and then in the 16th century suddenly Protestants started believing “B”…shouldn’t that make you pause and think?
Of course if you truly believe that the Church went to hell in a handbasket from 100AD to 1600AD…that the Holy Spirit failed…that Jesus Christ lied when he said the Church would never fail…
Btw, Pete again,
I wonder if you have seen the “Reformation in a Nutshell” thread? I was trying to make that point about church history, and posed a clear question, but nobody would go on the record with a clear answer. Maybe you could do better than me.
(First few dozen comments, esp. After a while it gets sidetracked about Barth -which is all fine and dandy, just not the topic I was after)
Hi Irene,
Here are the options that I see for Evangelicals who study Church history:
1) Hell in a handbasket theory. That gets really, really hard to believe when you look at the first 1000 years of the Church. (of course there are a small minority of whackos living in their mom’s basements who believe that there were “true blood believers” throughout history, until the Reformation, when they surfaced like zombies…even though there is zero evidence or historical proof)
2) Evolution theory (CMPs current belief): the Church has “evolved”. Neanderthals who believed in Sacraments for the first 1500 years of Christianity have been replaced by higher-thinkers like Calvin.
3) Different strokes for different folks: it’s all Jesus anyway, baby, don’t stress out! Universal salvation! Don’t harsh my mellow!
Anyway…
You’ve done a great job of explaining the RCC Magisterium. I’ve learned a lot from you, so thanks!
Pete again,
I think you have misunderstood my objection at several points. I am not saying that you cannot confess to a priest and have them remind you of the forgiveness found in Christ. My point has been that you are not required to do so. As you stated, “confess your sins to one another”. This does not mandate a confession to a priest, which is part of my objection. So to that, we agree, you do not HAVE to confess to a priest to have forgiveness of sins. Why? Because God is powerful and 1 John 1:9 speaks clearly as to the effect of this confession.
My point then gets to the simple idea from that same verse, if it is Christ who in fact forgives our sins, then the priest has no real power to do so in this sense. He can proclaim the forgiveness found in Christ and be a reminder of this forgiveness, but does not in fact have the ability to forgive these sins. Main reason, how do you assess actual repentance and Spiritual conviction against mere confession because of worldly sorrow? We cannot accurately do so, and must rely on God to do so.
Can false ideas be promulgated through time? Can ideas be more fully formed over time that were not clearly defined in the past? I think you take a false view of Patton’s view of the Church as “evolving” rather than maturing. I believe Patton thinks that the Church has matured over time, not evolved (but I could be wrong). The Trinity and Hypostatic Union are good examples of maturing doctrine that had to be worked out over centuries of Spiritual study and debate. But let’s take priestly celibacy as an example that finds little to no grounding in Scripture yet is enforced dogmatically at the RC and at higher levels in the EO (from my reading bishops).
Do you believe that the churches could not encounter theological, moral, and doctrinal error? Do you think this amounts to the failing of the Church when this happens?
Chad#26,
–Seat of Moses
Chad: “The easiest understanding of Moses’s seat, in my opinion, is that Jesus is telling them to obey the Law and not the extra laws and regulations that the scribes and Pharisees created with their religious practices.”
No. Jesus says in v.3, “so practice and observe whatever they tell you.” Jesus doesn’t say to disregard the extra laws. His criticism is that the scribes and Pharisees are hypocrites. Actually, “you hypocrites” is reapeated multiple times to them throughout the chapter. Yet the disciples he tells to obey them because they sit on the seat of Moses. The Pharisees themselves are not “good,” but the place of authority they have is still valid.
–apostolic succession
Chad: “[The apostles] were hand selected by Jesus, or through direct intervention of the Spirit to replace Judas. I believe the office is closed by virtue of those characteristics alone.”
Well, it wasn’t what you would call the direct intervention of the Spirit. It was Peter who stood and *interpreted Scripture* (v. 15-22), then listed the qualifications. The Holy Spirit’s choice was determined through prayer and the casting of lots.
And notice the words Peter uses. “was allotted his share” (v. 7), “His office let another take.” (v. 20), “to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside.” (v. 25.) You can see how the new man will be in the seat/office which Judas used to occupy.
Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom. For reference, see Is. 22:15-25. God is removing Shebna from his *office* and giving the *keys* to Eliakim instead. It’s about the steward of the king, who has authority from the king to manage the house, affairs, etc. Notice he is also called a father to Jerusalem and Judah. This is a standing office, with different occupants. Now the Kingdom of David is ruled by Christ, who gives Peter the keys.
Irene, #32
Apostolic succession:
Notice that Peter “interprets Scripture” as the qualification for the office vacated in v. 21 and 22. These qualifications are to have been there from the beginning to the resurrection of Christ. So, given this is the only time we have any Scriptural discussion of assuming an apostolic office, these would be the qualifications to do so. Otherwise you have to ignore what is there in order to assume you can take the office of apostle.
Also note that Eliakim was given temporary stewardship of Jerusalem. This was removed after a time, specifically Babylonian conquering of Jerusalem. Also note that the steward handled the house hold affairs, but deferred to the king in matters of justice and war. He stewarded the proclaimed justice and mandates of the king, but it was not his justice that he rendered, but the rendering of the king’s justice. Likewise, the forgiveness of Christ is what we are rendering, but it is irrelevant whether we do so because Christ has already proclaimed this forgiveness to all who believe in him. We are merely reminding them of this proclamation, not making our own proclamation.
Seat of Moses:
The scribes and Pharisees were the theologians and rabbis of the day. Fully trained in the Law, practicing it in overtly ridiculous ways because they felt that their external religious practices were imparting righteousness to them while their hearts were focused on themselves. They proclaimed the Law, yet followed it with external practices that Jesus condemns in numerous places. They preached those things such as “no healing on the Sabbath”. Yet, Jesus himself disregards their extra laws and regulations because it ignores the Law. He in fact disregards their extra laws and regulations and condemns them for them several times. Running out of time and space. The Law is about the heart, not the external and that is what Jesus is condemning. More later.
Chad,
“The Trinity and Hypostatic Union are good examples of maturing doctrine that had to be worked out over centuries of Spiritual study and debate.” This is not correct. In 324AD the Church did not believe that the Father and Son were not of one essence, and then in 325AD, suddenly the belief changed. No, the teachings of the Apostles was that Jesus Christ co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. 325AD did not “give birth” to this belief, it simply annunciated what the Church had always believed.
And to use your example again, throwing away the sacraments is not a “maturing of the Faith”. It is a radical departure and a rejection of 1,500 years of Christian teachings.
“But let’s take priestly celibacy as an example that finds little to no grounding in Scripture…” Really? Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul, all were celibate…have there ever been four greater than these? But your tradition says that celibacy “has no grounding in Scripture”? C’mon man…
Pete again,
You misunderstand. I do not mean that a priest cannot be celibate to the glory of God, but rather that they must be so in order to be part of the clergy. I wanted to clear that up before it gets too far into the night. Will talk more about maturing doctrine and such tomorrow. Hope you have a good night. Need to get the kids in bed.
Before you guys would get too far in that conversation, let me just sneak in here that priestly celibacy is not a dogma. It is a discipline (something like a rule or practice the Church sets for the good of the faithful. Falls under the power to bind and to loose.) So, in other words, the Church would have the authority to change that discipline. A dogma, such as only men being priests, is not within the Church’s authority to act contrary to; it’s more than just a discipline. It’s an absolute truth.
So, though priestly celibacy is the “rule” in the Catholic Church, there are special dispensations, such as for Anglican clergy and Orthodox priests who convert to Catholicism. (It’s not automatic –there are special programs/steps that I’m not up on). It sounds very odd, but there are those rare Catholic priests who are married with children.
Actually, now I’m thinking there may even be a “rite” in which priests do marry freely. I want to say its in the “East” but still part of the Catholic Church under the Bishop of Rome. (A rite is section of the Catholic Church that operates under certain disciplines and customs. There are quite a few different Catholic rites around the world. Latin Rite is by far the largest, and is what people normally think of when they think Catholic).
I don’t know, maybe I’m mistaken. Do you know Pete? I’m going to have to try to look that up now.
Well, in any case, I should say also that priestly celibacy is a dearly held discipline and I think is highly unlikely to change.
Irene, as usual you are correct. Priests in Eastern Catholic churches (Ukrainian, Melkite, etc.) in communion with Rome are allowed to be married.
Chad, here are some historical reasons that show how the tradition of celibate bishops began:
1. During the original persecutions of the first centuries – the title “bishop” was practically a death sentence (and why leave a widow & children behind?) – and with the aforementioned examples of Christian celibacy, many of the bishops never married.
2. After Christianity was de-criminalized in 313, the piety of the faithful took a dive. Wanting more prayer, men (& women) took out in droves and created the first monasteries (which of course are celibate). When the churches came looking for leaders (bishops), the head monk (archmandrite) of a monastery was a natural choice.
3. The job of being a bishop is extremely busy. You cannot imagine the responsibility and pressure. There are thousands (and many times tens of thousands) of souls in your care. Many times there is travel involved. And you know that you are the successor to the apostles, and “let not many be teachers, knowing that you will receive a stricter judgment”, so more pressure. Anyway, it’s a 24/7/365 job.
Chad, I’m guessing that this won’t mean a big deal to you because you do not accept the concept of church authority. You probably follow the typical Protestant methodology of deciding what you believe on your own, and then going out and find a church that most closely resembles your values.
If you read the New Testament, and look at Church history, it is clear that that Church has always had an administrative structure with offices (bishop, presbyter, deacon) all of whom are given authority to lead their flock.
Pete again,
You will have to be more specific about what you mean by church authority. Do you mean church authority in the sense of submitting to the elders of my church? Or do you mean church authority in the sense of submitting to an organization of clergymen elected from clergymen elected from clergymen?
I think you draw false conclusions about a great deal of things. Most importantly, I think you have some false view where all Protestants go around church shopping until we find that hunky dory place to settle down until we don’t like what we hear. Some will in fact do that, and that I believe is just a lack of Biblical understanding that leads them to that conclusion. Secondly, I did not shop for a church that resembles my views, I was saved at the church I currently attend. I do not take what ever they say at face value, but ensure that it is supported by Scripture. Why do I do that? Because it is Scriptural. Thirdly, I think you have a false view of what exactly pastors and elders do in Protestant churches.
I fully understand the decision of some of the bishops to not marry as the persecution could lead to their death and perhaps that of their family. Do not make the false conclusion that because some did it to avoid persecution that the only “qualified” way to do so after that was to only do as they do. Again, this is not to say you cannot be celibate and be a priest or bishop, but with everything there is wisdom to be involved.
It seems arbitrary, forced, and Pharisaical to decide that offices of church leadership are closed because you are married and continue to desire to love your wife. Now, if it is held as non-essential I do not have a large problem with that belief. My issue with most of these things is declaring them equivalent with Scripture in authority, or in some cases authority over Scripture. That is where it becomes a problem. Hope that clarifies some things.
Chad,
“You will have to be more specific about what you mean by church authority.” You do not accept the authority of the Roman Catholic Church (for example), so their biblical interpretations are meaningless to you.
On the other hand, I’m sure you agree with the CONCEPT of submitting to church authority and you submit to your local pastor 100%. When he tells you to bow your head and close your eyes, even though this is not in the Bible, you submit to his authority. When he tells you that you are saved and cannot lose that salvation, even though that is not in the Bible, you submit to his authority. When he tells you to use a version of the Bible that is different from the version that Jesus read in the synagogue (Luke 4), and different from what the apostles and early Church used (you use the Masoretic text, they used the Septuagint), you submit to his authority. When he tells you that you need faith alone, without works, to be saved, even though that isn’t in the Bible, you submit to his authority.
“I think you have a false view of what exactly pastors and elders do in Protestant churches.” My dad was a Baptist pastor, so I am well aware of their duties and responsibilities.
“It seems arbitrary, forced, and Pharisaical to decide that offices of church leadership are closed because you are married and continue to desire to love your wife.” Yea, I’m sure some gay activists have the same attitude toward your church, asking why you don’t have gay clergy. You know what? Churches have rules. The question is: do you accept their authority, or not? If you do, the rules are OK. If not, the rules are “arbitrary”.
The “My church is based on Scripture, and yours isn’t” attitude is a hoot! That’s why there is only 1 Protestant denomination, right? Oh wait, there are 1,000+?
Scripture is self-evident and self-interpreting…that’s what your pastor teaches, and you accept his authority…even through – wait for it – that’s not in the Bible either.
Pete again,
I confess, you have me confused. I ask what you meant by church authority and you answer with me rejecting RC’s authority…which you would as well. You then go on to state several things about my beliefs or practices which you would only know if you knew me, but you don’t. You have changed the very principal of what I have been discussing to reflect your own anger. You are continually telling me what I believe, even when these are not true.
You say that your dad was a Baptist pastor, but you act like taking the responsibility for “thousands to tens of thousands of souls” is something unique to Bishops and never ever happens anywhere else. My point never had to do with the idea of Bishops in general, but the extra-Biblical requirement that they be celibate.
Gay activists may view the “rules” of the church as arbitrary, except we are pointing to the Scriptures as the source for not allowing practicing homosexuality as an “approved” condition for a Christian in the same way that a “practicing adulterer” would not be acceptable. Sin is sin, plain and simple. But way to equate an obviously sinful behavior to an extra-biblical requirement. My point is that by mandating celibacy, the RC/EO (I guess, you tell me) has equated singleness to holiness. And my issue with it only extends to the point as where it is “divinely inspired” as this is the way it should be. Especially in light of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. So yes, that rule seems arbitrary, but not all of them seem so.
I have not ever stated that my church is based on Scripture and yours is not, so that attitude is solely based in your head. I have repeatedly stated where things do not seem to coincide with what Scripture would state these things are. Essentially, where dogma has overruled revelation in Scripture. Certainly we can confine our discussions to the few things already addressed without bringing in every point of difference between Protestants and EOs, can’t…
Please read I Corinthians 7 carefully with your pastor (KJV or NKJV please, not the horrible NIV). Clearly, the Apostle is laying out his preference for celibacy and the celibate life to serve the Lord.
If the Holy Spirit wants the bishops of the holy catholic and apostolic church to be married again, like our priests and deacons, then that is what will happen.