Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Catholic Sacrament of Penance

If Matt 16:18 was referring to peter as the pope and so forth, then I could see the catholic point of view, However, the Bible is clear...Jesus Christ is the Rock, the foundation, the cornerstone, NOT PETER OR THE POPE OR THE CC.......

So prophets and apostles aren't the foundation? But in the same post where you say Jesus is the foundation you quote Eph 2:20, which says that prophets and apostles are the foundation. :o Is only Jesus the light of the world as well? (actually I agree that he is for Christians are not a differrent light but his light shining through us). The Bible contradicts iteself. More forcing dichotomies that aren't there. God works through is creation. Through his servants. The new math. One + one = one Christ + his servants = God working in the world.
 
reply

Thess. We are the foundation and salt of the earth. We build upon each other and we are in Christ. Jesus said, I am the vine, ye are the branches (John 15:5). We are one with Christ. Our spirits are one with Him. Jesus is the head, we are the Body.

When a man's house is decayed, the real man still lives. The real man never dies. It is this inward man who becomes a new man in Christ. A new creation. It is the inward man who is born into the family of God, who is God's own child, and who is in perfect union with the Master. ( 2 Cor. 4:16).


May God bless, Golfjack
 
Re: reply

golfjack said:
Thess. We are the foundation and salt of the earth. We build upon each other and we are in Christ. Jesus said, I am the vine, ye are the branches (John 15:5). We are one with Christ. Our spirits are one with Him. Jesus is the head, we are the Body.

When a man's house is decayed, the real man still lives. The real man never dies. It is this inward man who becomes a new man in Christ. A new creation. It is the inward man who is born into the family of God, who is God's own child, and who is in perfect union with the Master. ( 2 Cor. 4:16).


May God bless, Golfjack

We are living stones placed upon the foundation. Not the foundation. The rest of it is you thinking you are preaching to the ignorant. It makes you feel good to think that all Catholics are ignorant doesn't it.
 
What it essentially comes down to is that people on this board who condemn Catholicism as false traditions can not adequately explain what it means when Jesus gave the Spirit and the authority to forgive the sins of others to the Apostles. The authority of men to forgive sins rests completely on God, but it is clear that is a matter of forgiving sins not only against one another but sins against God as well. Of course these sins are ultimately forgiven through the Cross, but scripture makes it clear that sin is not a personal matter, sin is a matter for the entire community and thus, the Sacrament of Penance arose as a sign of the reconciling power of Christ's death and enduring presence.

Why would James command is to confess our sins to another and why would God give the Apostles the authority to "forgive sins" if it was intended that confession of sin would be a private matter between yourself and God?

For self-professed adherents of sola-scriptura I'm seeing a lot of biblical ignorance here.
 
As a practicing RC who became Born Again during an Altar Call at my brother's Non Denominational Church by praying to Christ and asking Him to become my Savior I believe that anybody who states that the RCC is entirely false has a non functioning brain and is incapable of logical and analytical thinking because there are scriptural RCC doctrines and scriptural parts to the Mass. :smt021
 
RobertMazar said:
As a practicing RC who became Born Again during an Altar Call at my brother's Non Denominational Church by praying to Christ and asking Him to become my Savior I believe that anybody who states that the RCC is entirely false has a non functioning brain and is incapable of logical and analytical thinking because there are scriptural RCC doctrines and scriptural parts to the Mass. :smt021

To the person who "As_a_practicing_RC_who_became_born_again?"

(I just had to say that)

No one is suggesting that the RCC is completely in error. I dont think anyone says that. We agree on trinitarianism, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, and much more.

The question is are the popes and councils ever in error. If there is one error in a council, then infallibility cannot be claimed. What do you think? Was the papal bull of excommunication for Martin Luther right, or wrong?
 
mondar said:
To the person who "As_a_practicing_RC_who_became_born_again?"

(I just had to say that)

No one is suggesting that the RCC is completely in error. I dont think anyone says that. We agree on trinitarianism, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, and much more.

The question is are the popes and councils ever in error. If there is one error in a council, then infallibility cannot be claimed. What do you think? Was the papal bull of excommunication for Martin Luther right, or wrong?

Once again you put your misunderstandings on display for all to see. You seem to be up on the decrees of trent but have no clue what the canons on infallibility say from Vatican I. Infallibility does not cover anything a pope or a council says and does. Read the canons and get an education. Stop distorting what Catholicism teaches. You bear false witness. Infalliblity refers to those things stated with regard to faith and morals, intended to be binding on the WHOLE CHURCH (an excommunication of Martin Luther is not the whole Church) done in the capacity of the office of Pope or in Ecumenical council when the doctrine is applied to council. Once again you will tell me I am wrong and riducule me for telling you what Catholicism teaches. Once again I praise God for being considered a fool and the subject of your mockery.
 
Of course Martin Luther should have been ex-communicated. He taught sola scriptura, which in both my opinion and that of the Church, is, ironically, unbiblical.
 
Devekut said:
Of course Martin Luther should have been ex-communicated. He taught sola scriptura, which in both my opinion and that of the Church, is, ironically, unbiblical.

Yet the point remains that an excommunication of an individual does not come under the dogma of infallibility of popes and councils. It is within their authority but not infallibly so. He is misusing the dogma of infallibility in a way that clearly shows that he does not really have a clue what it is. But as he has shown in the past, I doudt he will accept instruction from a Catholic of 48 years. He would rather continue to bear false witness on the matter.
 
thessalonian said:
Once again you put your misunderstandings on display for all to see. You seem to be up on the decrees of trent but have no clue what the canons on infallibility say from Vatican I. Infallibility does not cover anything a pope or a council says and does. Read the canons and get an education. Stop distorting what Catholicism teaches. You bear false witness. Infalliblity refers to those things stated with regard to faith and morals, intended to be binding on the WHOLE CHURCH (an excommunication of Martin Luther is not the whole Church) done in the capacity of the office of Pope or in Ecumenical council when the doctrine is applied to council. Once again you will tell me I am wrong and riducule me for telling you what Catholicism teaches. Once again I praise God for being considered a fool and the subject of your mockery.

Why is it that if anyone tells a Catholic he is wrong, it is ridicule? Thessalonian, do you have some persecution complex? And who has been calling you a fool? If I remember right, was it not you that was calling the reformers "deformers?"
 
mondar said:
Why is it that if anyone tells a Catholic he is wrong, it is ridicule? "

That in fact is not why I said it. Perhaps you have forgotten your words and I need to post some hard fast examples for you.
 
Devekut said:
Of course Martin Luther should have been ex-communicated. He taught sola scriptura, which in both my opinion and that of the Church, is, ironically, unbiblical.

Lets see...Oh yes, Here are 95 heresy's of the catholic church that luther exposed


# When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

# The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.

# Yet its meaning is not restricted to repentance in one's heart; for such repentance is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.

# As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward repentance) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven.

# The pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.

# The pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases, the guilt remains untouched.

# God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making him humbly submissive to the priest, His representative.

# The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.

# Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case.

# It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory.

# When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep.

# In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition.

# Death puts an end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.

# Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least.

# This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, whatever else might be said, to constitute the pain of purgatory, since it approaches very closely to the horror of despair.

# There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and assurance.

# Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased.

# Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace.

# Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and assured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves.

# Therefore the pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean "all" in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself.

# Hence those who preach indulgences are in error when they say that a man is absolved and saved from every penalty by the pope's indulgences.

# Indeed, he cannot remit to souls in purgatory any penalty which canon law declares should be suffered in the present life.

# If plenary remission could be granted to anyone at all, it would be only in the cases of the most perfect, i.e. to very few.

# It must therefore be the case that the major part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of relief from penalty.

# The same power as the pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish.

# The pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys (which he cannot exercise for them).

# There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.

# It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.

# Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).

# No one is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of receiving plenary forgiveness.

# One who bona fide buys indulgence is a rare as a bona fide penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.

# All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means of letters of indulgence, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.

# We should be most carefully on our guard against those who say that the papal indulgences are an inestimable divine gift, and that a man is reconciled to God by them.

# For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental "satisfactions" decreed merely by man.

# It is not in accordance with Christian doctrines to preach and teach that those who buy off souls, or purchase confessional licenses, have no need to repent of their own sins.

# Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt, and this is given him without letters of indulgence.

# Any true Christian whatsoever, living or dead, participates in all the benefits of Christ and the Church; and this participation is granted to him by God without letters of indulgence.

# Yet the pope's remission and dispensation are in no way to be despised, for, as already said, they proclaim the divine remission.

# It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to extol to the people the great bounty contained in the indulgences, while, at the same time, praising contrition as a virtue.

# A truly contrite sinner seeks out, and loves to pay, the penalties of his sins; whereas the very multitude of indulgences dulls men's consciences, and tends to make them hate the penalties.

# Papal indulgences should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of love.

# Christians should be taught that the pope does not at all intend that the purchase of indulgences should be understood as at all comparable with the works of mercy.

# Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences.

# Because, by works of love, love grows and a man becomes a better man; whereas, by indulgences, he does not become a better man, but only escapes certain penalties.

# Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but passes him by although he gives money for indulgences, gains no benefit from the pope's pardon, but only incurs the wrath of God.

# Christians should be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they are bound to retain what is only necessary for the upkeep of their home, and should in no way squander it on indulgences.

# Christians should be taught that they purchase indulgences voluntarily, and are not under obligation to do so.

# Christians should be taught that, in granting indulgences, the pope has more need, and more desire, for devout prayer on his own behalf than for ready money.

# Christians should be taught that the pope's indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of God through them.

# Christians should be taught that, if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence-preachers, he would rather the church of St. Peter were reduced to ashes than be built with the skin, flesh, and bones of the sheep.

# Christians should be taught that the pope would be willing, as he ought if necessity should arise, to sell the church of St. Peter, and give, too, his own money to many of those from whom the pardon-merchants conjure money.

# It is vain to rely on salvation by letters of indulgence, even if the commissary, or indeed the pope himself, were to pledge his own soul for their validity.

# Those are enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid the word of God to be preached at all in some churches, in order that indulgences may be preached in others.

# The word of God suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to indulgences than to that word.

# The pope cannot help taking the view that if indulgences (very small matters) are celebrated by one bell, one pageant, or one ceremony, the gospel (a very great matter) should be preached to the accompaniment of a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

# The treasures of the church, out of which the pope dispenses indulgences, are not sufficiently spoken of or known among the people of Christ.

# That these treasures are not temporal are clear from the fact that many of the merchants do not grant them freely, but only collect them.

# Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, because, even apart from the pope, these merits are always working grace in the inner man, and working the cross, death, and hell in the outer man.

# St. Laurence said that the poor were the treasures of the church, but he used the term in accordance with the custom of his own time.

# We do not speak rashly in saying that the treasures of the church are the keys of the church, and are bestowed by the merits of Christ.

# For it is clear that the power of the pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases.

# The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

# It is right to regard this treasure as most odious, for it makes the first to be the last.

# On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last to be the first.

# Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets which, in former times, they used to fish for men of wealth.

# The treasures of the indulgences are the nets to-day which they use to fish for men of wealth.

# The indulgences, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favours, are seen to be, in fact, a favourite means for money-getting.

# Nevertheless, they are not to be compared with the grace of God and the compassion shown in the Cross.

# Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence.

# But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the pope commissioned.

# Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.

# On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant's words.

# In the same way, the pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences.

# It is much more in keeping with his views to excommunicate those who use the pretext of indulgences to plot anything to the detriment of holy love and truth.

# It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the impossible and violated the mother of God.

# We assert the contrary, and say that the pope's pardons are not able to remove the least venial of sins as far as their guilt is concerned.

# When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.

# We assert the contrary, and say that he, and any pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in I Corinthians 12 [:28].

# It is blasphemy to say that the insignia of the cross with the papal arms are of equal value to the cross on which Christ died.

# The bishops, curates, and theologians, who permit assertions of that kind to be made to the people without let or hindrance, will have to answer for it.

# This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for learned men to guard the respect due to the pope against false accusations, or at least from the keen criticisms of the laity.

# They ask, e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose.

# Again: Why should funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continue to be said? And why does not the pope repay, or permit to be repaid, the benefactions instituted for these purposes, since it is wrong to pray for those souls who are now redeemed?

# Again: Surely this is a new sort of compassion, on the part of God and the pope, when an impious man, an enemy of God, is allowed to pay money to redeem a devout soul, a friend of God; while yet that devout and beloved soul is not allowed to be redeemed without payment, for love's sake, and just because of its need of redemption.

# Again: Why are the penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves,â€â€why are they, to-day, still used in imposing fines in money, through the granting of indulgences, as if all the penitential canons were fully operative?

# Again: since the pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?

# Again: What does the pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect repentance, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation?

# Again: Surely a greater good could be done to the church if the pope were to bestow these remissions and dispensations, not once, as now, but a hundred times a day, for the benefit of any believer whatever.

# What the pope seeks by indulgences is not money, but rather the salvation of souls; why then does he suspend the letters and indulgences formerly conceded, and still as efficacious as ever?

# These questions are serious matters of conscience to the laity. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy.

# If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.

# Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ's people, "Peace, peace," where in there is no peace.

# Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ's people, "The cross, the cross," where there is no cross.

# Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells.

# And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false assurance of peace.
 
I've a question regarding the specific Sacrament of Penance.

This is from the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

310. What are the effects of this sacrament?

1468-1470
1496

The effects of the sacrament of Penance are: reconciliation with God and therefore the forgiveness of sins; reconciliation with the Church; recovery, if it has been lost, of the state of grace; remission of the eternal punishment merited by mortal sins, and remission, at least in part, of the temporal punishment which is the consequence of sin; peace, serenity of conscience and spiritual consolation; and an increase of spiritual strength for the struggle of Christian living.

My question will be regarding this statement:
recovery, if it has been lost, of the state of grace

Also from the Compendium is this statement: 14. What is the relationship between Tradition and Sacred Scripture?

80-82
97

Tradition and Sacred Scripture are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ. They flow out of the same divine well-spring and together make up one sacred deposit of faith from which the Church derives her certainty about revelation.

If Tradition and Sacred Scripture "flow out of the same divine well-spring and together make up ONE sacred depost of faith" there should then not be any conflict between Tradition and Scripture.

Yet the Sacrament of Penance states that one of it's objectives would be "recovery, if it has been lost, of the state of grace".

Is this not in direct conflict with Hebrews 6:4-6 which states:

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.
 
That's an excellent question, Handy, and I must admit it is beyond the scope of my knowledge at the moment but I will certainly consult a Catholic specialist and get an answer for you.

It reminds me very much of the conflict with Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, and the Donatists. Following the intense persecution of pockets of Christians in the Roman Empire, the Donatists were adamant that any Christian that had denied Christ under persecution could not be re-admitted to the Church now that the storm had passed, so to speak. Augustine, of course, was against this position and the Church opened her arms to all repentent sinners, even those who had once denied Christ.

It's a contreversial topic, and I'll get back to you.
 
Devekut said:
Of course Martin Luther should have been ex-communicated. He taught sola scriptura, which in both my opinion and that of the Church, is, ironically, unbiblical.
As a practicing Catholic who became Born Again by praying to Christ and asking Him to become my Savior I believe that you have a non functioning brain, are incapable of logical and analytical thinking and are being guided by Satan for believing that sola scriptura is unscriptural and for believing in the unscriptural Catholic doctrines and the unscriptural parts to the Mass. Repent and renounce the unscriptural Catholic doctrines and the unscriptural parts to the Mass and embrace and receive Christ as your Savior by praying to Him and asking Him to become your Savior or else you will be spending eternity in Hell. :smt075
 
mondar said:
To the person who "As_a_practicing_RC_who_became_born_again?"

(I just had to say that)

No one is suggesting that the RCC is completely in error. I dont think anyone says that. We agree on trinitarianism, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, and much more.

The question is are the popes and councils ever in error. If there is one error in a council, then infallibility cannot be claimed. What do you think? Was the papal bull of excommunication for Martin Luther right, or wrong?
Of course Papal Infallibility is utterly unscriptural. And Luther should not have been excommunicated for teaching the totally scriptural concept of sola scriptura. And anybody who thinks that sola scriptura is unscriptural has a non functioning brain, is incapable of logical and analytical thinking and is being guided by Satan. :icecream:
 
Robert, your non-functioning brain comments do not help dialogue. Seems to me you are not Catholic. Sorry but I can make no other judgement. I do hope you return to the faith.
 
Handy,

Your question is a good one. Two things. First of all the passage is regarding Apostacy. The RSV states it thusly:

Heb 6
[4] For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
[5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
[6] if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

Apostacy would include a denial of the sacrament of penance and so if they deny it they cannot be restored by it.
But I think the more important part is that Paul is saying that those who have aposticied cannot be restored by us. Yet we no, nothing is unforgiviable by God except for blasphemy of the spirit. This passage is meant to be taken as WE cannot restore them. But God can.
 
Back
Top