can catholics Go To God Directly In prayers?

[The Biblicist]

Acts 1 gives persists the authority

John 20 finalizes the sacrement of Connfession


John 20:21-23
King James Version (KJV)
21*Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22*And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23*Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

This kind of response, the Roman Catholic response, is simply ignorance to the the use of the keys that was well known in Rabbinic literature. To bind or to loose or to prohibit and allow was merely administrative responses to how they interpreted scriptures through their leading rabbi's. To resolve anyone of sin was based upon the Biblical provision for such.

That is precisely the manner it is used by the church through its ordained leadership - administrative of what scripture has bound or loosed, prohibited or allowed. Remission of sins is through repentance and faith in the preached gospel as commissioned in Luke 24:47 and repeately expressed throughout the scriptures both Old and New Testament (Acts 10:43; Heb. 6:1).

Breathing a special dispensation of the Spirit on them is quite obvious due to the absence of both comforters during that ten day period between Christ's ascension and Pentecost so that they had wisdom and leadership needed to conduct the church business recorded in Acts 1:15-2:1.

This Roman Catholic interpetation comes form the occult and Mystery Babylon where most of its doctrines originate.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This kind of response, the Roman Catholic response, is simply ignorance to the the use of the keys that was well known in Rabbinic literature. To bind or to loose or to prohibit and allow was merely administrative responses to how they interpreted scriptures through their leading rabbi's.

So you admit there is presedent of a body established by God which has interprative authority of scripture!

To resolve anyone of sin was based upon the Biblical provision for such.

Which biblically Jesus gave that provision to the Apostles.

That is precisely the manner it is used by the church through its ordained leadership - administrative of what scripture has bound or loosed, prohibited or allowed. Remission of sins is through repentance and faith in the preached gospel as commissioned in Luke 24:47 and repeately expressed throughout the scriptures both Old and New Testament (Acts 10:43; Heb. 6:1).

Yep sounds Catholic.

This Roman Catholic interpetation comes form the occult and Mystery Babylon where most of its doctrines originate.

Again Hisop was proven to be in error.

 

[Zenas]

Apostle John states that when a Christian sins, that he needs to confess that to the father, in name of Jesus!

And God will fully restore him...Blood of jesus cleanse from ALL sin...

Why didn't the Apostle have the sins confessed to him instead?

No he doesn't. Read it. It speaks of confessing our siins but it doesn't specify who we are to confess them to. You can't seem to understand (or more probably wish to feign ignorance) that when we confess to a priest we are confessing to Jesus. It's just like if you are negotiating a commercial deal with me and I send my lawyer. The lawyer speaks for me and makes commitments for me that I am bound to honor. You aren't negotiating with the lawyer; you are negotiating with me through my lawyer. Same thing with the relation between the priest and the penitant, which is really the relation between God and the penitant, with the priest merely being God's stand in. The priest acts in persona Christi, that is in the person of Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

So you admit there is presedent of a body established by God which has interprative authority of scripture!

Simply because Paul quotes from a heathen writer does not attribute interpretative authority to the writings of that heathen. Simply because Christ selects certain rabbinical expressions does not mean he approves of the rabbinial literature as he quite clearly condemned all such "traditions" that violated the scriptures.

Hence, what he is doing is simply selecting what harmonizes with scripture. The rabbi's themselve claimed their traditions were not legislative in nature as Rome claims, but were administrative in nature and authorized by scriptures and were the conclusons of proper interpretation of the scriptures. Rome has blasphemeously usurped the scriptures claimed legislative privilege that the Rabbi's and rabbinnical literature never claimed legistlative authority.

 

[Yeshua1]

No he doesn't. Read it. It speaks of confessing our siins but it doesn't specify who we are to confess them to. You can't seem to understand (or more probably wish to feign ignorance) that when we confess to a priest we are confessing to Jesus. It's just like if you are negotiating a commercial deal with me and I send my lawyer. The lawyer speaks for me and makes commitments for me that I am bound to honor. You aren't negotiating with the lawyer; you are negotiating with me through my lawyer. Same thing with the relation between the priest and the penitant, which is really the relation between God and the penitant, with the priest merely being God's stand in. The priest acts in persona Christi, that is in the person of Christ.

the problem with that understanding is that NO verses state that ONLY priests can go to God on our behalf, as we are ALL priests to God, and ALL have same and full access to God thru jesus, and John DID indeed mean that saints confess sins to God directly, NO RCC priest requited!

per the bible, I am just as much a priest as ANY RCC one, JSUT as much a saint as mary or one of the Apostles!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

the problem with that understanding is that NO verses state that ONLY priests can go to God on our behalf, as we are ALL priests to God, and ALL have same and full access to God thru jesus, and John DID indeed mean that saints confess sins to God directly, NO RCC priest requited!

per the bible, I am just as much a priest as ANY RCC one, JSUT as much a saint as mary or one of the Apostles!

No one says you are not a priest. All Jews were a nation of Priest to the world and they never fulfilled their obligation. And note even this nation of priest had special administrative priests or the levites.

The presbyters or Catholic Priest aren't in the same vein as the Jewish priest but function as church elders and administrative leaders. And the Apostles were given the authority to forgive and retain sins. The passage is clear.

 

[Yeshua1]

No one says you are not a priest. All Jews were a nation of Priest to the world and they never fulfilled their obligation. And note even this nation of priest had special administrative priests or the levites.

The presbyters or Catholic Priest aren't in the same vein as the Jewish priest but function as church elders and administrative leaders. And the Apostles were given the authority to forgive and retain sins. The passage is clear.

Point is that per the Bible, we have NO need to have RCC priests set to go between the laity and god, as jesus takes that position/role!

the passage in question is clear, but the fact is that the RCC interpretes it in a fashion inconsistent with the bible, but with RCC teachings!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Simply because Paul quotes from a heathen writer does not attribute interpretative authority to the writings of that heathen. Simply because Christ selects certain rabbinical expressions does not mean he approves of the rabbinial literature as he quite clearly condemned all such "traditions" that violated the scriptures.

LOL!!! He uses a Rabinical expression and understanding and says to his apostles you have the authority to bind and loose to forgive and retain. Because his apostles were all jewish and understood things in a jewish context and now you are saying we used something they understood quite clearly but didn't mean it? Basically your version of the event was jesus saying "you guys have this authority...Psych! Didn't mean it. I was just goofing!" Jesus used the Jewish context to emphasize his point. And certianly Jews had the law thus weren't entirely heathen.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Point is that per the Bible, we have NO need to have RCC priests set to go between the laity and god, as jesus takes that position/role!

We have no need of levites certainly have need of Church leaders or the presbytery. And when you God to confession you and the priest God directly before God.

the passage in question is clear, but the fact is that the RCC interpretes it in a fashion inconsistent with the bible, but with RCC teachings!

Indeed the passage is clear. Jesus gave his apostles the authority to forgive and to retain sin.

 

[Zenas]

the problem with that understanding is that NO verses state that ONLY priests can go to God on our behalf, as we are ALL priests to God, and ALL have same and full access to God thru jesus, and John DID indeed mean that saints confess sins to God directly, NO RCC priest requited!

per the bible, I am just as much a priest as ANY RCC one, JSUT as much a saint as mary or one of the Apostles!

No one said we can't go directly to Jesus. You're tossing out a straw man here because you have nowhere else to go in this debate. Go back and read Post #29 which I posted on this very issue. I would say you just don't get it, but I believe you just don't want to get because if you did get it you would have to accept sacraments like all right thinking Christians do.

 

[The Biblicist]

LOL!!! He uses a Rabinical expression and understanding and says to his apostles you have the authority to bind and loose to forgive and retain. Because his apostles were all jewish and understood things in a jewish context and now you are saying we used something they understood quite clearly but didn't mean it? Basically your version of the event was jesus saying "you guys have this authority...Psych! Didn't mean it. I was just goofing!" Jesus used the Jewish context to emphasize his point. And certianly Jews had the law thus weren't entirely heathen.

Amazing, just uttterly amazing!!! Go back and read what I said and try it again. They did not have LEGISLATIVE authority and never claimed it. Their claim was based upon administering what they perceived to be already established by scriptures. That is precisely what Jesus is approving and this authority is given a PLURAL "you" identified contextually as "the church" (Mt. 16:18-19 with 18:17-18).

In contrast, Rome is usurping the Scriptures as final authority and claiming LEGISLATIVE authority which the Rabbi's would never dream of claiming.

One more proof of Babylonian Roman CAtholicism.

 

[Walter]

No matter how you try to spin it, a clear, simple reading of the word of God tells us that Christ gave the power to forgive sin in His name to the Apostles. Confessing to a priest is biblical. In John 20, we read of Christ appearing to the disciples on Easter Sunday. He breathed on the apostles giving them the authority to forgive, and not to forgive. This means they had to hear the sins in order to forgive/not forgive. Jesus then says “as the Father has sent me, so I send you”. This clearly means the apostles are to continue Christ’s mission, the essence of which is the forgiveness of sins. In 2 Corinthians, St. Paul describes the apostles as ambassadors of Christ’s work of reconciliation. In the Epistle of James we read that the presbyters (priests) are called to pray for the sick and forgive their sins. Why are priests called to perform this task? Obviously, the priests have an authority that ordinary Christians do not. It is clear that Christ gave the apostles the power to forgive sins.

 

[The Biblicist]

Q

No matter how you try to spin it, a clear, simple reading of the word of God tells us that Christ gave the power to forgive sin in His name to the Apostles.

First, you have no way to prove that he was speaking only to the apostles in that context because Acts 1:21-22 asserts that others were continually ASSEMBLING with Christ from the baptism of John to the ascension or else they would have no one to choose to replace Judas. So you cannot prove this is said to merely apostles but could have been directed to the whole church. Moreover, Matthew 18:17-18 grammatically demands the keys are in the hands of the whole "church" not its eldership or else step two in Matthew 18:16 would be call the elders and/or step three would be call the elders.

No Apostle claimed this right and Paul provides more written literature on remission of sins than any apostle and yet he never claimed the ROMAN CATHOLIC interpetation of these words.

Confessing to a priest is biblical.

It is not Biblical and you have absolutely no scripture to show it is Biblical.

In John 20, we read of Christ appearing to the disciples on Easter Sunday. He breathed on the apostles giving them the authority to forgive, and not to forgive. This means they had to hear the sins in order to forgive/not forgive.

No different than John hearing the confession of sins prior to baptizing those who believed in Christ (Jn. 3:36) demanding "fruits meet for repentance" for baptism.

In 2 Corinthians, St. Paul describes the apostles as ambassadors of Christ’s work of reconciliation.

FALSE! Paul described every reconciled believer as ambassordors of Christ and this is in the context of redemption.

2 Cor. 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Are you saying that the only ones Christ reconciled were apostles ("us") because the same "us" reconciled is the same "us" given the ministry of reconciliation.

In the Epistle of James we read that the presbyters (priests) are called to pray for the sick and forgive their sins.

No, we do not read that. TFirst, the term prebuteros does not mean priest and never will in the New Testament church institution. Second, no mention of confession of their sins to the elders. They are instructed to confess their faults to "ONE ANOTHER" which by its very meaning includes the KIND OF PERSON confessing sin to be the kind of person the sin is confessed unto. Are you saying the church is made up of only elders??????

Why are priests called to perform this task?

No such office in the church institution. No such word used to describe a preist. Every church member is a "priest" in regard to DIRECT ACCESS to God through Christ - Heb. 10:19-25.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Amazing, just uttterly amazing!!! Go back and read what I said and try it again. They did not have LEGISLATIVE authority and never claimed it.

You don't understand Judaism then. They absolutely did. And Jesus is providing authority to his apostles.

In contrast, Rome is usurping the Scriptures as final authority and claiming LEGISLATIVE authority which the Rabbi's would never dream of claiming.

One more proof of Babylonian Roman CAtholicism

.

Again Hisop was wrong.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No matter how you try to spin it, a clear, simple reading of the word of God tells us that Christ gave the power to forgive sin in His name to the Apostles. Confessing to a priest is biblical. In John 20, we read of Christ appearing to the disciples on Easter Sunday. He breathed on the apostles giving them the authority to forgive, and not to forgive. This means they had to hear the sins in order to forgive/not forgive. Jesus then says “as the Father has sent me, so I send you”. This clearly means the apostles are to continue Christ’s mission, the essence of which is the forgiveness of sins. In 2 Corinthians, St. Paul describes the apostles as ambassadors of Christ’s work of reconciliation. In the Epistle of James we read that the presbyters (priests) are called to pray for the sick and forgive their sins. Why are priests called to perform this task? Obviously, the priests have an authority that ordinary Christians do not. It is clear that Christ gave the apostles the power to forgive sins.

:thumbs:............................................................

 

[Walter]

First, you have no way to prove that he was speaking only to the apostles in that context because Acts 1:21-22 asserts that others were continually ASSEMBLING with Christ from the baptism of John to the ascension or else they would have no one to choose to replace Judas. So you cannot prove this is said to merely apostles but could have been directed to the whole church. Moreover, Matthew 18:17-18 grammatically demands the keys are in the hands of the whole "church" not its eldership or else step two in Matthew 18:16 would be call the elders and/or step three would be call the elders.

No Apostle claimed this right and Paul provides more written literature on remission of sins than any apostle and yet he never claimed the ROMAN CATHOLIC interpetation of these words.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
The proof lies in the interpretation and practice from the very origins of the Church. Your interpretation (Baptist) was totally foreign to the Early Church. Can you show me that your interpretation was held or ever espoused in the Early Church? Here is the historical writings which support the Catholic practice of confession to a priest. Check out the dates of these writings. Do you have any historical writings that say these beliefs were ever in dispute in the Early Church?

"In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life...On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure." Didache, 4:14,14:1 (c. A.D. 90).

"Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness[of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop." Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyraeans, 9 (c. A.D. 110).

"Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest, that he may minister blamelessly by night and day, that he may unceasingly behold and appropriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins..." Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 3 (A.D. 215).

"The Pontifex Maximus--that is, the bishop of bishops--issues an edict: 'I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.'" Tertullian, Modesty, 1 (A.D. 220).

"In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance...when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord." Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).

"It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God's mysteries is entrusted." Basil, Rule Briefly Treated, 288 (A.D. 374).

"All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven." Augustine, Christian Combat (A.D. 397).

"Just as in the Old Testament the priest makes the leper clean or unclean, so in the New Testament the bishop and presbyter binds or looses not those who are innocent or guilty, but by reason of their office, when they have heard various kinds of sins, they know who is to be bound and who loosed." Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, 3:16,19 (A.D. 398).


It is not Biblical and you have absolutely no scripture to show it is Biblical.


What I have is proof that the Early Church interpreted the scriptures just as the Catholic Church of today does.


No different than John hearing the confession of sins prior to baptizing those who believed in Christ (Jn. 3:36) demanding "fruits meet for repentance" for baptism.


These Early Church writings contradict your claim.

Of course, if ANYTHING can be found in the Early Church Fathers writings to be heretical or in error, you will automatically throw out anything else they said whether it is biblically supported or not. They didn't always agree on every point of doctrine. I don't know anyone who believe that everything an ECF ever said is orthodox and biblical, but there are many doctrines of the Christian faith that they were are all in agreement on. These writings concerning 'confession to a priest' is a good example.

 

[The Biblicist]

First, you have no way to prove that he was speaking only to the apostles in that context because Acts 1:21-22 asserts that others were continually ASSEMBLING with Christ from the baptism of John to the ascension or else they would have no one to choose to replace Judas. So you cannot prove this is said to merely apostles but could have been directed to the whole church. Moreover, Matthew 18:17-18 grammatically demands the keys are in the hands of the whole "church" not its eldership or else step two in Matthew 18:16 would be call the elders and/or step three would be call the elders.

No Apostle claimed this right and Paul provides more written literature on remission of sins than any apostle and yet he never claimed the ROMAN CATHOLIC interpetation of these words.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
The proof lies in the interpretation and practice from the very origins of the Church. Your interpretation (Baptist) was totally foreign to the Early Church. Can you show me that your interpretation was held or ever espoused in the Early Church? Here is the historical writings which support the Catholic practice of confession to a priest. Check out the dates of these writings. Do you have any historical writings that say these beliefs were ever in dispute in the Early Church?

"In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life...On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure." Didache, 4:14,14:1 (c. A.D. 90).

"Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness[of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop." Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyraeans, 9 (c. A.D. 110).

"Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest, that he may minister blamelessly by night and day, that he may unceasingly behold and appropriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins..." Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 3 (A.D. 215).

"The Pontifex Maximus--that is, the bishop of bishops--issues an edict: 'I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.'" Tertullian, Modesty, 1 (A.D. 220).

"In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance...when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord." Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).

"It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God's mysteries is entrusted." Basil, Rule Briefly Treated, 288 (A.D. 374).

"All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven." Augustine, Christian Combat (A.D. 397).

"Just as in the Old Testament the priest makes the leper clean or unclean, so in the New Testament the bishop and presbyter binds or looses not those who are innocent or guilty, but by reason of their office, when they have heard various kinds of sins, they know who is to be bound and who loosed." Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, 3:16,19 (A.D. 398).


It is not Biblical and you have absolutely no scripture to show it is Biblical.


What I have is proof that the Early Church interpreted the scriptures just as the Catholic Church of today does.


No different than John hearing the confession of sins prior to baptizing those who believed in Christ (Jn. 3:36) demanding "fruits meet for repentance" for baptism.


These Early Church writings contradict your claim.

Of course, if ANYTHING can be found in the Early Church Fathers writings to be heretical or in error, you will automatically throw out anything else they said whether it is biblically supported or not. They didn't always agree on every point of doctrine. I don't know anyone who believe that everything an ECF ever said is orthodox and biblical, but there are many doctrines of the Christian faith that they were are all in agreement on. These writings concerning 'confession to a priest' is a good example.

This is where Catholics and all sacramentalists are eventually forced to flee to justify their non-Biblical doctrines to uninspired records of apostate Christianity just as apostate Judaism's refuge was in the "traditions of the elders" rather than the Word of God. Perfect paralellism.

 

[Walter]

This is where Catholics and all sacramentalists are eventually forced to flee to justify their non-Biblical doctrines to uninspired records of apostate Christianity just as apostate Judaism's refuge was in the "traditions of the elders" rather than the Word of God. Perfect paralellism.

Yeah, the historical evidence is overwhelming if you ask me. You have evidence from the earliest post apostolic writings that supports the Catholic interpretation ONLY! Since none of the writings support your Baptist position, then you declare all the historical evidence that supports the Catholic position as non-biblical and heretical. This is where YOU are forced to flee. Please show me one historical document that ANY Christians in the Early Church supported your position. Documents that contradict the belief that Christ gave the authority to fogive sin in His name to His Apostles and their successors.

I thought that it was the position of most Baptists on this board that the Church did not become apostate until Constantine, but here we have the Church teaching Catholic doctrine from the very start on this subject (and a lot of others lke the Eucharist, Baptism, etc.). Surely, there would be writings of 'true believers' challenging this.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yeah, the historical evidence is overwhelming if you ask me.

Didn't ask you and wouldn't. Your position was predicted by Christ as the "Many" or majority point of view by apostate Christianity (Mt. 7:13-14,21-23) and so yes, it should be the MAJORITY or the "MANY" report in secular history just as Jesus predicted whereas the truth is in the MINORITY or "few" report.

I thought that it was the position of most Baptists on this board that the Church did not become apostate until Constantine, but here we have the Church teaching Catholic doctrine from the very start on this subject (and a lot of others lke the Eucharist, Baptism, etc.). Surely, there would be writings of 'true believers' challenging this.

Constantine was merely the apex of apostasy due to its state church union. However, most non-Catholic historians teach that all the seeds of apostasy began to occur during the apostolic period (indeed that is precisely what they were combating) and then gradually developed until apostate Christianity was permeated with Babylonian doctrine, terms, and beliefs under Christianized names taking full bloom with the state church union under Constantine.

 

[Yeshua1]

Didn't ask you and wouldn't. Your position was predicted by Christ as the "Many" or majority point of view by apostate Christianity (Mt. 7:13-14,21-23) and so yes, it should be the MAJORITY or the "MANY" report in secular history just as Jesus predicted whereas the truth is in the MINORITY or "few" report.




Constantine was merely the apex of apostasy due to its state church union. However, most non-Catholic historians teach that all the seeds of apostasy began to occur during the apostolic period (indeed that is precisely what they were combating) and then gradually developed until apostate Christianity was permeated with Babylonian doctrine, terms, and beliefs under Christianized names taking full bloom with the state church union under Constantine.

paul/peter/jude ALL addressed the Apostasy that was starting to creep into the early church under the guise of 'revelations/Gnostic/additional knowledge" etc...

So early church had the devil and his teachers creep in unawares, and keep building until time of RCC and Rome become in bed together, and papacy and full teachings etc by timeof Council of trent, when full apostasy was codifed!