I Confess...........[The Complete Biblical Basis for Confession]

You've decided to help out on a confirmation retreat at your parish.You're a small group leader with five candidates in your group. The youth are responding well until the time comes to go to confession. One of the girls in your group, Michelle, has an objection to going to confession.

Her Evangelical boyfriend has apparently convinced her she has no need of a priest to confess her sins. "Why can't I confess my sins directly to God?" Michelle protests.

Evidently, Michelle was waiting for this opportunity to make her stand, because she immediately reels off five Scripture passages that she had no doubt memorized for the occasion.

"Isaiah 43:25 says, 'I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.' It's God who forgives sins," she confidently proclaims. You notice she is quoting from the King James Bible.

"Further, Hebrews 3:1 and 7:22-27 tell us Jesus is our one and only true High Priest and that there are not many priests, but one in the New Testament. The Bible makes it clear in 1 John 2:2 that Jesus 'is the propitiation for our sins,' and not some priest, 'and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world'. And how can we Catholics claim priests act in the role of mediator in confession when 1 Timothy 2:5 tells us, 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus'?"

You begin by complimenting Michelle on her knowledge of Scripture, and encourage the rest of your group to imitate her in the practice of memorizing Sacred Scripture. You thank her for both her honesty and for bringing up these objections to confession. In answering them, these objections can serve to deepen our understanding of the One, True Faith established by Jesus Christ.

Step One: After thanking Michelle once again for bringing up Isaiah 43:25, which teaches us that it is, in fact, God Who forgives our sins, you ask another member of the group, Mark, to read Leviticus 19:20-22:"If a man lies carnally with a woman . . . they shall not be put to death . . . but he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord, to the door of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him . . . before the Lord for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him."

Remember, Isaiah 43:25 is an Old Testament passage. It declares that God forgives our sins. On that point all Christians agree. However, here in Leviticus, also in the Old Testament, the priest has been given the ministry of reconciliation. He mediates God's forgiveness to the sinner. Obviously, this does not take away from the fact that it is God Who does the forgiving. God is the efficient, or ultimate, cause of forgiveness. The priest is the instrumental cause

Michelle immediately objects. "But Jesus is our priest and mediator in the New Testament."

You respond, "We'll get to that in a minute, Michelle, but first I want to make sure everyone understands what we're saying." Now, in order to keep this from becoming a confrontation between yourself and Michelle, you turn to the rest of the group and say, "God indeed forgives us our sins, as Isaiah 43:25 teaches. However, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of using priests to mediate that forgiveness to the world as Leviticus 19:20-22 teaches. Right?"

You notice Michelle responds affirmatively with the others, so you quickly move ahead.

"Michelle brought up another excellent point we need to address. How can we Catholics have priests to forgive our sins, when Hebrews 3:1 says Jesus is the apostle and High Priest of our confession? And what about Hebrews 7:22-27?" At this point, you ask another member of your small group, Kendra, to read the text.

"This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever . . . For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself."

At this point, you see all five of your group members absorbed in thought. Jennifer suddenly pipes up and says, "How do we answer that one? It seems that Jesus is our only priest."

"And like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ . . . But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people . . ."

If Jesus is the one and only priest in the New Testament in the strict sense that Protestants believe, then we have a contradiction in Sacred Scripture, because 1 Peter teaches that all believers are members of a holy priesthood. The key to clearing up this difficulty is in understanding the nature of the Body of Christ. Believers do not take away from Christ's unique Priesthood, rather, as members of His Body, we establish His Priesthood on earth. We are His hands and feet.Michelle jumps in, "That doesn't say there's any special priesthood we have to go to in order to have our mortal sins forgiven. That text says we're all priests.

"We'll get to that," you assure her, "but we are making progress. A moment ago we couldn't see how anyone could be a priest in the New Testament other than Christ, and now we see how all believers are priests.

"Before we move on to demonstrate a special priesthood, can we all see how Christ being the true High Priest does not eliminate the possibility of there being many priests? We are priests as believers inasmuch as we participate in the one priesthood of Christ, as members of His Body."At this point you clear up the difficulty of 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Yes, Jesus is the one mediator between God and men. However, Christians are also called to be mediators in Him. When we intercede for one another or share the gospel with someone, we act as mediators of God's love and grace in the one true Mediator, Christ Jesus (cf. 1 Tim. 2:1-7, 4:16, Rom. 10:9-14).

Now what about 1 John 2:2? "He is the expiation [propitiation] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." How can we demonstrate from Scripture the existence of a priesthood with the power to forgive sins, within the universal priesthood of all believers?

Now show the context of 1 Peter 2:5, 9. When St. Peter teaches us about the universal priesthood of all believers, he refers to Exodus 19:6 where God speaks of ancient Israel as "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation," a reference to the universal priesthood in the Old Testament "church." But this did not preclude the existence of the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods within that universal priesthood (cf. Ex. 28 and Num. 3:1-12).

In an analogous way, we have a universal "royal priesthood" in the New Testament, but we also have an ordained clergy who have priestly authority given to them by Christ to carry out His ministry of reconciliation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17-21, John 20:21-23, James 5:16). Michelle once again protests. "But you still haven't answered the Scripture I quoted earlier. 1 John 2:2 says Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, not a priest. And in Mark 2:5-10, Jesus forgives the sins of a paralytic. When the scribes object to that and call it blasphemy, Jesus says: ' "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth," he said to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home."' Scripture is clear. Jesus is the One we go to for forgiveness. Where does the Bible say there's a priesthood with the authority to forgive sins

Now ask Mark to read John 20:21-23 to the group: "Jesus said to them 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.' "

"What does this text say to you?" you ask. Andrea speaks up: "I think it says Jesus gave His authority to forgive sins to His disciples, which we read about in Mark 2." The rest of the group agrees, except for Michelle, who had been listening attentively, but is now studying the text intensely.

You point out the setting: Jesus has risen from the dead and is about to ascend to the Father. In verse 21, Jesus says, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." What did the Father send Jesus to do? He came to be the one true mediator between God and men: proclaiming the gospel (cf. Luke 4:16-21), reigning supreme as King of kings and Lord of lords (cf. Rev. 19:16), and especially, redeeming the world through the forgiveness of sins (cf. 1 Peter 2:21-25, Mark 2:5-10). So this is what Christ is sending the apostles to do in His name: To proclaim the gospel with His authority (cf. Matt. 18:15-17), to govern the Church in His stead (cf. Luke 22:29-30), and to sanctify the Church through the sacraments, especially the Eucharist (cf. John 6:54, 1 Cor. 11:24-29) and confession.

Christ, the High Priest of the New Covenant, ordained the apostles to continue His priestly mission. In John 20:22-23, Jesus then emphasizes this essential part of the priestly ministry of the apostles: forgiving men's sins in the name of Christ. "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." This is confession. The only way the apostles can either forgive or retain sins is by first hearing those sins confessed, and then making a judgement as to whether or not the penitent should be absolved.

"You mean it's up to the priest to decide whether or not I'm going to be forgiven?" Michelle queries indignantly.

"Let's say a woman confesses adultery," you continue. "When the priest asks her if she's sorry for her sin and resolved to turn away from it, she says she's not. The priest would then be bound to 'retain' her sins. One has to be truly sorry for his or her sins in order to be forgiven." "What if she lies to the priest and says she's sorry when she's not, and then the priest absolves her?" Jennifer asks. "Will she be forgiven?" "No," you respond. "The sacrament does not take effect unless the penitent is truly sorry for his or her sins. In fact, lying in confession is another serious sin, called the sin of sacrilege.

You notice Michelle is much less defensive when she asks her next question. "Do we see any examples of the apostles or church elders actually forgiving sins?"

You have Andrea read 2 Corinthians 2:10: "Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ."

Actually, a better translation of the phrase "in the presence of Christ" is "in the person of Christ." The Greek word in the passage is prosopon. The Latin word persona comes from this word. The Greek prefix pro translates to Latin as per. The Greek sopon becomes sona in Latin. Interestingly, the King James Bible renders the better translation of "person."

You read James 5:14-16 aloud: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects."

You point out Scripture teaches us we must go to the "elders," not just anyone, to receive this "anointing" and the forgiveness of our sins.Michelle objects. "In verse 16 it says to confess our sins to one another and pray for one another. James is just encouraging us to confess our sins to a close friend so we can help one another to overcome our faults."

You respond, "We have to examine the context of Scripture in order to understand it properly. There are two reasons we know St. James is not saying we should confess our sins to just anyone. First, he's just told us to go to the elder, or priest, in verse 14. Then, verse 16 begins with the word "therefore." That word is a conjunction that connects verse 16 back to verses 14 and 15. It's the elder to whom St. James is telling us to confess our sins.

At this point, there's a break and you decide to take Michelle outside for a little one on one. You ask her, "Well, what do you think?"She replies thoughtfully, "I have to admit, John 20:21-23 and all the rest of the verses you pointed out make it awfully clear. But it's so hard to confess your sins to a man."

"Yep, I agree," you say. "But I guarantee you, you will walk out of that confessional feeling like you're walking on air. And remember, when the priest says, 'I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,' there are two people speaking at the same time: the priest, and Jesus Himself, Who loves you more than words could ever say."

After the break, it's time for confession. You're watching for Michelle. As soon as she comes out of the confessional, she looks right at you with a bright, beaming smile. As she approaches, you tease, "Was I right?"

The smile never leaves her face as she slaps you a high five and walks toward the chapel to pray.

A straight forward reply, Polycarp.

Now, if the "penitent" is insincere then the absolution pronounced by the priest is of no effect, right? In fac,t he has the added sin and guilt of deceit.

So the priest can not grant any actual absolution, even if he pronounces it, when the "penitent" is less than penitent. Yet the "penitent" leaves having been told his sins are absolved, is this not right?

As a pastor, I tell "penitents" that 1 John 1:9 says if we confess our sins (I explain that means literally to say the same thing as -- meaning we must have God's view of our sin) then He is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Forgiveness, then, is conditioned on one's agreement (homologeo) with God.

Great theology. Straight from the Bible

On the honesty issue, Steve, here is another thought.

Are you aware that some Catholics now prefer a face to face Confession with the priest rather than being in the Confessional box of old times. I know I do.

Now, I take it you are a counselor. Sometimes you cannot tell if a person is sincere, but I would daresay if you are a good counselor, you can usually tell when they are lying. And so you rephrase a question to bring out some additional information. Correct?

Well, in the face to face format, the same scenario could occur. The difference then?

The presence of the Holy Spirit and the grace and forgiveness of Jesus Christ extended and given freely through the priest who has received the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Do me a favor?

You have shown kindness, patience, and charity in our discussions. Same for RnMomof7 (usually ;-)

In the future, however, I would appreciate it if we kept our discussions between ourselves if at all possible.

I will not debate with certain FReepers, including some you pinged here and some that RnMomof7 habitually ping to other threads, and several others with whom I have no patience nor desire for dialogue. This is primarily the reason I had given up apologetics here in general. There is only so much a decent God Fearing Christian can take.

I have testified to my adult decision to follow Christ in the past. God alone is my judge. I am not now a "born again" Catholic.

So it was just another day huh? Nothing much special..a bit like picking out a new car..a nice memory

Too bad you deny being born again..Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Jhn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

From the man you hold as high as Christ

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

God does not play games Poly read this and think of Peter's words

Mat 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

Mat 13:4 And when he sowed, some [seeds] fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

Mat 13:5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

Mat 13:6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

Mat 13:7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

Mat 13:8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

Mat 13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

You had a gift..too bad you now deny it .2Ti 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]: if we deny [him], he also will deny us:

Is the position worth it?

Polycarp, we can keep our discussions private.

However, you did ping me (post #7) to this thread to respond to the article publically.

You harshly responded (post #19) to Becky's discussion (post #12) of a verse than was not done in a combative tone.

I asked you (post #23) why you were harsh and asked you to explain or to apologize {post #34).

You questioned whether she read the article (post #36) and she responsed that you were wrong (post #47).

You finally apologize for confusing Becky with Mack (post #52), you continued the slug fest with Becky including linking her with LDS views.

I reentered the discussion at post #102 responding to post #96 by salvation. I pinged you because I thought you might be more knowledgeable in responding to my question. My tone was civil, I believe. I know my question was sincere.

After some interchange with Salvation where my question was not answered you responded with an answer to my question (post #111).

I thanked you for the response (post #119) and then probed the logic of the response.

Your post acknowledged my kindness, patience and charity and asked for future discussions to be private (this post).

I do enjoy off record interaction with you. It is always civil and productive. I will honor your request. But Polycarp, I think an earlier acknowledgement that you overreacted to Becky's request was/is in order.

In the future freep me if you want to interact in private, ping me if you want to interact publically. Thanks!

nBy Father William Most. (who is an excellent Catholic theologian)

"At the last Supper, Jesus had promised to send the Holy Spirit, to lead them into all truth (John 16:13 cf. 14:26). This did not mean new public revelations (cf. DV paragraph 4). It meant that over the centuries the Holy Spirit would lead the Church then ever deeper penetration into the deposit of faith once given.

In view of this gradual penetration into truth, it is not strange if the Church did not at first realize everything about the Sacrament of Penance. Look how slow Peter was, in Acts 10, to see He must admit gentiles into the Church, even though Jesus had told Him: "Go and make disciples of all nations" (Mt. 28: 19).

So we do not at first meet clear mentions of the Sacrament of Penance. This does not mean it was not used, it only means we do not happen to have any record of it. Had it been suddenly invented later, there would have been an uproar, such as came when new heresies developed. But there is no such thing." end quote

Okay I don't know a whole lot about this. But here is as much as I do know. We know that the early Christians expected the return of Christ, like any minute! We know that baptism was the means of forgivenss of sins. So the early Christians did not have a clear idea what to do when one sinned seriously after baptism. And this did not present a problem until it started to dawn on them that the world was not going to end anytime soon. We also know that apostles did not understand everything Jesus said all at once.

The early church was chaotic. Problems came up, questions arose, there was debate, study, arguement. Sometimes it went on for centuries. What seems common knowledge to us now is so because of all the study and thinking of those who came before us. It just like common sense to me, that the apostles were given to power to forgive sins. But that is because I am the beneficiary of the result of the Holy Spirit leading his apostles into all truth over the centuries before me. So I am not worried about the practice of confession being a development. It is backed up by scripture and by the fact that the Fathers pondered, discussed and theorized about it for centuries and that there was confession, in some form, very early in the history of the Church.

Actually, it has even changed a little bit since I was born. It has a new name. Reconciliation. That's new after Vatican II. A good name, more positive. When I was a kid there was no face to face confession. Now there is. So they adjust and fine tune even today.

Drstevej,

Simple misunderstanding here, Steve. All I meant was that I would hope, when we are holding a public debate here on a thread, that you not ping the Calvinist Caucus to our own discussion.

If they stumble upon our discourse, and thus enter the fray, or if you need certain data from them to help you make or defend a point of doctrine or scriptural interpretation, so be it. But I would prefer to keep our discussions, insofar as possible, between us.

See my FReepmail to you for a little background on the tactics of some of the anti-Catholics here with whom I would rather not again engage debate.

Bottom line? Its simply that there are some here I enjoy debating with, and some I prefer not debating with.

My apologies for any misunderstandings.

The issue was how did the apostles understand the words of Christ? It is obvious they did not set up confessionals so they did not Hear the word directly from God the way the church teaches it now. That was developed over centuries not hours.

You are free to draw your own conclusions. But I read what Gods word says and take that as "gospel"

The Bible tells me the temple veil was rent when Jesus died on the cross and I now have direct access to the throne of God..I no longer need a priest to do that for me. For that I thank God!

Why post things if you won't debate

This article makes an honest, cohesive, convincing argument for the scriptural basis of confession. Several non-Catholic posters have attempted to refute it. Many Catholics, I'm sure, have read it. Some have commented here.

The purpose of apologetics from the Catholic perspective is to show the reasonableness of RCC belief to practicing Catholics, fallen away Catholics, non-Catholics, and non-Christians. The primary goal is to keep Catholics Catholic, bring fallen away Catholics home, and convert the rest (to Christ, and therefore to Christ's Church.)

Some days I bite off more than I can chew.

Obviously with this thread I had neither enough time nor enough patience to carry on a debate charitably or kindly.

Tactical error on my part, and poor self knowledge, given the other intense and dangerous spiritual battles in which I am currently engaged.

Lesson for me?

Stick to one battle at a time. I knew I was not ready yet to step back into simple apologetics, my first love. I should have listened to that still small voice (you know the one, RnMomof7, the Holy Spirit.)

I do not like the battle I am in and was hoping for a brief respite in a simple apologetics thread. I was not abandoned to Divine Providence and chose my own path instead. There is no better sign of failure to abandon yourself to His Will than failure in your apostolic efforts.

Oh well, enough of this. My fault, my error, sorry Becky for being nasty, it was uncalled for, and of course you were right, DrStevej, for pointing it out.

I gotta go back to helping fight the homo agenda, and persevere in the local fight against my bishop.

I hate it, it is nasty business, and wish I could return to this emotional yet enjoyable milleau of simple old fashioned apologetics.

Nothing much special..a bit like picking out a new car..a nice memory Too bad you deny being born again

...Just for future reference, RnMomof7:

straw man
Function: noun
Date: 1896
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
2 : a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Coincidentally, we were looking at a used van today, still hoping for more little ones to fill it with...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.