Why Confession?

[Cathode]

Odd. The Catechism of the Catholic Church must have mislabeled that one.

"The sacrament of Penance is a whole consisting in three actions of the penitent and the priest's absolution. The penitent acts are repentance, confession or disclosure of sins to the priest, and the intention to make reparation and do works of reparation."

This is found nowhere in the Bible.

Yes it is.

“But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Clear cut case.

 

[JonC]

Yes it is.

“But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Clear cut case.

Lol....jumping to another book to try and get support. You are funny....and desperate.

No. Zacchaeus was not saying he'd do penance for sins in order to gain grace. He is expressing repentance, not self-punishment.

There are no passages in Scripture that speak of penance. Absolutely none, except perhaps the pagan attempt to gain grace by works.

 

[JonC]

@Cathode ,

Your twisting of Scrioture in an attempt to justify Roman Catholic doctrine is silky. As a Catholic you hold the men over you (over your "church") as your authority. They tell you what to believe and you go to the Bible to try and support that faith.

You found a man being dunked seven times in the river to be a "clear cut" case for the Catholic use of holy water.

Things like this is why nobody can take you seriously when it comes to God's Word. You lack discernment when it comes to the Bible. You start with a belief and then try to justify it with Scripture (you have it backwards).

BUT you are in a position to say what you do believe. You are in a position to explain your view of the Eucharist, of penance, of holy water, etc. You just are worthless when it comes to Scripture. And that is fine. As a Catholic you have a different authority for your doctrine. That is what you should address, not Scripture.

 

[Cathode]

Lol....jumping to another book to try and get support. You are funny....and desperate.

No. Zacchaeus was not saying he'd do penance for sins in order to gain grace. He is expressing repentance, not self-punishment.

There are no passages in Scripture that speak of penance. Absolutely none, except perhaps the pagan attempt to gain grace by works.

Forgiveness is a grace, if we confess.

Restitution is a sign of repentance, in Zacchaeus’ case he imposed it on himself, a harsh one, acknowledging that he cheated people.

And he did gain Grace, by the acknowledgement of the Lord of his forgiveness.

Clear cut case.

 

[JonC]

Forgiveness is a grace, if we confess.

Restitution is a sign of repentance, in Zacchaeus’ case he imposed it on himself, a harsh one, acknowledging that he cheated people.

And he did gain Grace, by the acknowledgement of the Lord of his forgiveness.

Clear cut case.

Forgiveness is a grace.

But we are talking about penance.

You already stated that Catholics abandoned God's instruction as practiced in the early church because Catholics thought it was embarrassing.

Penance has nothing to do with actual forgiveness and Cathokic confession has nothing to do with Biblical confession.

Catholicism is an amalgamation of Christianity and paganism.

 

[Cathode]

@Cathode ,

Your twisting of Scrioture in an attempt to justify Roman Catholic doctrine is silky. As a Catholic you hold the men over you (over your "church") as your authority. They tell you what to believe and you go to the Bible to try and support that faith.

You found a man being dunked seven times in the river to be a "clear cut" case for the Catholic use of holy water.

Things like this is why nobody can take you seriously when it comes to God's Word. You lack discernment when it comes to the Bible. You start with a belief and then try to justify it with Scripture (you have it backwards).

BUT you are in a position to say what you do believe. You are in a position to explain your view of the Eucharist, of penance, of holy water, etc. You just are worthless when it comes to Scripture. And that is fine. As a Catholic you have a different authority for your doctrine. That is what you should address, not Scripture.

The problem is that you have been alienated from the ancient Apostolic understanding of Scripture.
You have been accustomed to the new human founded interpretive traditions, which vary even among themselves, never objectively settled in interpretation or doctrine.
Luther and Calvin being lawyers imbued their whole enterprise with legalism and legalisms opinions of scripture, not the truth of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

The problem is that you have been alienated from the ancient Apostolic understanding of Scripture.
You have been accustomed to the new human founded interpretive traditions, which vary even among themselves, never objectively settled in interpretation or doctrine.
Luther and Calvin being lawyers imbued their whole enterprise with legalism and legalisms opinions of scripture, not the truth of Scripture.

No. The Catholic Church was created long after the Apostles had died. God's Word is eternal.

You still don't understand. Catholic doctrines like penance, holy water, Catholic priests, Catholic Confession.....these are all foreign to Scripture.

It has nothing to do with interpretation. What you have been doing has nothing to do with interpretation.

You have a faith and then look to the Bible for support of that faith. You see a man being dunked in a river seven times and remaining unclean until later as supporting holy water, Paul disciplining the flesh so as not to sin as penance.

That is NOT interpretation. That is desperation.

That said, I agree about Calvin (not Luther as you mistepresent his background and thought process....but I believe Luther was wrong as well). Calvin and Luther kept too much Roman Catholicism in their doctrine (especially Calvin).

 

[Cathode]

Forgiveness is a grace.

But we are talking about penance.

You already stated that Catholics abandoned God's instruction as practiced in the early church because Catholics thought it was embarrassing.

Penance has nothing to do with actual forgiveness and Cathokic confession has nothing to do with Biblical confession.

Catholicism is an amalgamation of Christianity and paganism.

You are pounding the table not the facts.

These are clear scriptural examples.

I think you would deny anything a Catholic told you, because it was a Catholic telling you.

“Such are the words and deeds by which, in our own district of the Rhone, they have deluded many women, who have their consciences seared as with a hot iron. Some of them, indeed, make a public confession of their sins; but others of them are ashamed to do this, and in a tacit kind of way, despairing of [attaining to] the life of God, have, some of them, apostatized altogether; while others hesitate between the two courses, and incur that which is implied in the proverb, ‘neither without nor within;’ possessing this as the fruit from the seed of the children of knowledge.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:13 (A.D. 180).

“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).

“For although in smaller sins sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion: now with their time still unfulfilled, while persecution is still raging, while the peace of the Church itself is not vet restored, they are admitted to communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands Of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.'” Cyprian, To the Clergy, 9 (16):2 (A.D. 250).

 

[Cathode]

No. The Catholic Church was created long after the Apostles had died. God's Word is eternal.

You still don't understand. Catholic doctrines like penance, holy water, Catholic priests, Catholic Confession.....these are all foreign to Scripture.

It has nothing to do with interpretation. What you have been doing has nothing to do with interpretation.

You have a faith and then look to the Bible for support of that faith. You see a man being dunked in a river seven times and remaining unclean until later as supporting holy water, Paul disciplining the flesh so as not to sin as penance.

That is NOT interpretation. That is desperation.

Catholics had this understanding long before Protestantism or Baptists existed, conforming scripture to their doctrines and opinions was their opening act.

That said, I agree about Calvin (not Luther as you mistepresent his background and thought process....but I believe Luther was wrong as well). Calvin and Luther kept too much Roman Catholicism in their doctrine (especially Calvin).

They thought they were guided from on high, but you demonstrate that they were kidding themselves. Bible alonism is just ever changing human opinions and doctrines.

 

[Cathode]

@Cathode ,

Your twisting of Scrioture in an attempt to justify Roman Catholic doctrine is silky. As a Catholic you hold the men over you (over your "church") as your authority. They tell you what to believe and you go to the Bible to try and support that faith.

You found a man being dunked seven times in the river to be a "clear cut" case for the Catholic use of holy water.

Things like this is why nobody can take you seriously when it comes to God's Word. You lack discernment when it comes to the Bible. You start with a belief and then try to justify it with Scripture (you have it backwards).

BUT you are in a position to say what you do believe. You are in a position to explain your view of the Eucharist, of penance, of holy water, etc. You just are worthless when it comes to Scripture. And that is fine. As a Catholic you have a different authority for your doctrine. That is what you should address, not Scripture.

It was the Catholic Church that preserved the scriptures and determined and assembled the first Canon itself. That’s what it does, it canonises things.

Knowingly or unknowingly we all trust the God guided Authority of the Catholic Church that did that.

Every book in your bible and mine was determined by the Catholic Church guided by God.

I simply let the Catholic Church explain the meaning of Her Book.

The Bible didn’t come from Protestantism or Baptist’s, they had nothing to do with the Bible, it’s preservation or determining, why would anyone treat their opinions of Scripture as authoritive. Especially as they don’t even agree amongst themselves as to what it means, and no doctrine is settled among them from all their conflicting interpretations of the same scripture.

 

[Cathode]

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”

Confession makes us righteous, and is the passing through the Faithful Gate to Heaven.

“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).

 

[Cathode]

Jesus established the Apostolic Authority to forgive and retain sin so that by confession we could know that we made righteous on earth before the eyes of Heaven.

Paul judged the man forgiven on earth, before the presence of Christ in Heaven.

Serious sin, mortal sin, not only cuts us off from Christian fellowship as with Paul’s expulsion of the man from the community. It cuts us off from God and the life of Grace.

Those with mortal sin need to confess to an Apostolic Successor who is an ambassador of Christ, who has the authority to bind and loose, to forgive and retain sin in His Name.

 

[JonC]

It was the Catholic Church that preserved the scriptures and determined and assembled the first Canon itself. That’s what it does, it canonises things.

Knowingly or unknowingly we all trust the God guided Authority of the Catholic Church that did that.

Every book in your bible and mine was determined by the Catholic Church guided by God.

I simply let the Catholic Church explain the meaning of Her Book.

The Bible didn’t come from Protestantism or Baptist’s, they had nothing to do with the Bible, it’s preservation or determining, why would anyone treat their opinions of Scripture as authoritive. Especially as they don’t even agree amongst themselves as to what it means, and no doctrine is settled among them from all their conflicting interpretations of the same scripture.

I agree that God uses even the ungodly. The Bible existed prior to the Catholic Church. The earliest surviving text is around the same time the Catholic Church was invented, but it is the oldest surviving - not necessarily the oldest compiled.

The Bible does not come from Catholics. That said, you are right that God used the Catholic Church to preserve documents.

Muslims admire the Quran, even illiterate Muslims. So what?

Catholics don't agree amongst themselves over the meaning of Scripture. They are against shifting organization (they even had a reformation of their own shortly after the Protestant Reformation.....so your current doctrine is also in debt to the Reformers for sparking that need.

Your mistake is to think that there is an organizational group called "Protestants", or "Baptists". There isn't.

I get that you place the men in your organization in authority, to tell you what to believe. The problem is what they tell you is in the Bibke actually is foreign to Scripture. It isn't a matter of interpretation but addition. You equate men with God. That is wrong.

If the Bible is God's Word then the doctrines within are eternal.

The primary difference between Protestant denominations is in how much Roman Catholic doctrine they retained or reformed. Some went closer to Scripture. Some, like Calvin, retained a lot of Catholicism (just reformed or reworked that Catholic doctrine).

 

[JonC]

Jesus established the Apostolic Authority to forgive and retain sin so that by confession we could know that we made righteous on earth before the eyes of Heaven.

Paul judged the man forgiven on earth, before the presence of Christ in Heaven.

Serious sin, mortal sin, not only cuts us off from Christian fellowship as with Paul’s expulsion of the man from the community. It cuts us off from God and the life of Grace.

Those with mortal sin need to confess to an Apostolic Successor who is an ambassador of Christ, who has the authority to bind and loose, to forgive and retain sin in His Name.

Again, you are speaking of a "church" that is just as much oagan as Christian. Your replies and misuse of Scripture under the excuse you allow the men over your "church" to tell you what to believe proves your mistake.

 

[JonC]

What many may not realize when @Cathode speaks of Protestant denominations is the fact that the Catholic Church has reinvented itself several times over. This is why when we speak of the Catholic Church we have to denote which one we are speaking of (we do this by adding the century that marked the change).

The reason Catholics see a continuation back to the late 4th century is that the secular world government gave these truely different Catholic Churchs continuity.

For example, take a very fundamental issue - what did Christ accomplish on the Cross? (A disagreement that is at the heart of many seperate denominations).

The Roman Catholic Church held a view in the 5th century that the 11th century Roman Catholic Church saw as heresy. The 13th century Roman Catholic Church viewed the 11th century Roman Catholic doctrine as heresy.

Without the secular world government holding the structure of the Roman Catholic Church together via a union of Church and State we would rightly call each of these new faiths (different churches).

By @Cathode 's utilization and comparisons to denominations that reject such a union with worldly powers today's Roman Catholic Church is fairly new (newer than the Presbyterian Church at least).

And @Cathode is correct on that point. Today's Roman Catholic Church can only, via actual doctrine, be dated back to the 12th century at best, the 16th century if comparing to denominations.

 

[Cathode]

What many may not realize when @Cathode speaks of Protestant denominations is the fact that the Catholic Church has reinvented itself several times over. This is why when we speak of the Catholic Church we have to denote which one we are speaking of (we do this by adding the century that marked the change).

The reason Catholics see a continuation back to the late 4th century is that the secular world government gave these truely different Catholic Churchs continuity.

For example, take a very fundamental issue - what did Christ accomplish on the Cross? (A disagreement that is at the heart of many seperate denominations).

The Roman Catholic Church held a view in the 5th century that the 11th century Roman Catholic Church saw as heresy. The 13th century Roman Catholic Church viewed the 11th century Roman Catholic doctrine as heresy.

Without the secular world government holding the structure of the Roman Catholic Church together via a union of Church and State we would rightly call each of these new faiths (different churches).

By @Cathode 's utilization and comparisons to denominations that reject such a union with worldly powers today's Roman Catholic Church is fairly new (newer than the Presbyterian Church at least).

And @Cathode is correct on that point. Today's Roman Catholic Church can only, via actual doctrine, be dated back to the 12th century at best, the 16th century if comparing to denominations.

“And besides, also, one only Catholic and Apostolic Church, which can never be destroyed, though all the world should seek to make war with it; but it is victorious over every most impious revolt of the heretics who rise up against it. For her Goodman hath confirmed our minds by saying, ‘Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.’ ” Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle on the Arian Heresy, 12 (A.D. 321).

“The Church, ordained by the Lord and established by His Apostles, is one for all; but the frantic folly of discordant sects has severed them from her. And it is obvious that these dissensions concerning the faith result from a distorted mind, which twists the words of Scripture into conformity with its opinion, instead of adjusting that opinion to the words of Scripture. And thus, amid the clash of mutually destructive errors, the Church stands revealed not only by her own teaching, but by that of her rivals. They are ranged, all of them, against her; and the very fact that she stands single and alone is her sufficient answer to their godless delusions. The hosts of heresy assemble themselves against her; each of them can defeat all the others, but not one can win a victory for itself. The only victory is the triumph which the Church celebrates over them all.” Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 7:4 (A.D. 359).

“ ‘For the temple of God is holy,’ says the Apostle, ‘which (temple) are ye.’ This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abideth in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’” Augustine, Sermon to the Catechumens on the Creed, 6:14 (A.D. 377).

 

[Mikoo]

You are pounding the table not the facts.

These are clear scriptural examples.

I think you would deny anything a Catholic told you, because it was a Catholic telling you.

“Such are the words and deeds by which, in our own district of the Rhone, they have deluded many women, who have their consciences seared as with a hot iron. Some of them, indeed, make a public confession of their sins; but others of them are ashamed to do this, and in a tacit kind of way, despairing of [attaining to] the life of God, have, some of them, apostatized altogether; while others hesitate between the two courses, and incur that which is implied in the proverb, ‘neither without nor within;’ possessing this as the fruit from the seed of the children of knowledge.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:13 (A.D. 180).

“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).

“For although in smaller sins sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion: now with their time still unfulfilled, while persecution is still raging, while the peace of the Church itself is not vet restored, they are admitted to communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands Of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.'” Cyprian, To the Clergy, 9 (16):2 (A.D. 250).

Is that the Word of God?

 

[Mikoo]

What many may not realize when @Cathode speaks of Protestant denominations is the fact that the Catholic Church has reinvented itself several times over. This is why when we speak of the Catholic Church we have to denote which one we are speaking of (we do this by adding the century that marked the change).

The reason Catholics see a continuation back to the late 4th century is that the secular world government gave these truely different Catholic Churchs continuity.

For example, take a very fundamental issue - what did Christ accomplish on the Cross? (A disagreement that is at the heart of many seperate denominations).

The Roman Catholic Church held a view in the 5th century that the 11th century Roman Catholic Church saw as heresy. The 13th century Roman Catholic Church viewed the 11th century Roman Catholic doctrine as heresy.

Without the secular world government holding the structure of the Roman Catholic Church together via a union of Church and State we would rightly call each of these new faiths (different churches).

By @Cathode 's utilization and comparisons to denominations that reject such a union with worldly powers today's Roman Catholic Church is fairly new (newer than the Presbyterian Church at least).

And @Cathode is correct on that point. Today's Roman Catholic Church can only, via actual doctrine, be dated back to the 12th century at best, the 16th century if comparing to denominations.

It is hard for members of the rc denomination to shake of those rc blinders.

 

[Oseas3]

It is hard for members of the rc denomination to shake of those rc blinders.

Titus 3:10
10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; (avoid him). 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Our Lord JESUS make it clear, saying: Matthew 7:6 - Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

No discussion with followers of the Gentile MAN Beast of sea, but Sword-Revelation 13:2 and 14. Take a look

 

[JonC]

“And besides, also, one only Catholic and Apostolic Church, which can never be destroyed, though all the world should seek to make war with it; but it is victorious over every most impious revolt of the heretics who rise up against it. For her Goodman hath confirmed our minds by saying, ‘Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.’ ” Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle on the Arian Heresy, 12 (A.D. 321).

“The Church, ordained by the Lord and established by His Apostles, is one for all; but the frantic folly of discordant sects has severed them from her. And it is obvious that these dissensions concerning the faith result from a distorted mind, which twists the words of Scripture into conformity with its opinion, instead of adjusting that opinion to the words of Scripture. And thus, amid the clash of mutually destructive errors, the Church stands revealed not only by her own teaching, but by that of her rivals. They are ranged, all of them, against her; and the very fact that she stands single and alone is her sufficient answer to their godless delusions. The hosts of heresy assemble themselves against her; each of them can defeat all the others, but not one can win a victory for itself. The only victory is the triumph which the Church celebrates over them all.” Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 7:4 (A.D. 359).

“ ‘For the temple of God is holy,’ says the Apostle, ‘which (temple) are ye.’ This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abideth in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’” Augustine, Sermon to the Catechumens on the Creed, 6:14 (A.D. 377).

The Roman Catholic Church was destroyed several times throught history with only its secularism holding it together.

Think about it.

The Roman Church today views the 11th century Roman Catholic Church as holding a heresy in terms of their belief of the Cross....of what Jesus accomplished. That is not a minor change in doctrine.

It occurred several times throughout history and it goes both ways.

If not for the World the Roman Catholic Vhurvh would now exist in several denominations. Instead the World decided the Roman Catholic Church was wrong and the doctrinecwas changed (those not willing to change were excommunicated or murdered).