From a discussion on John 20:23

2. From a discussion onOctober 13, 2011 9:33 PM

   Russell said...Hi De Maria,

   
   Hi Russell,
   
   (Part 1)
   
   

   Again, I will try to be brief.
   First of all, I want to apologize for my sloppy research on the decree “Lamentabili Sane” that we discussed. I certainly stand corrected, and I hope that no one will try to use my erroneous application of the quotes in that decree.

   
   
   No problem.
   
   

   Concerning the New Catholic Encyclopedia quote on exomologesis, you said that I emphasized the “public confession” part of it, but I ignored the word “implies.” Here, you seem to be suggesting that “implying” makes for a weak case on my part, but shortly afterward, you said that the Bible “implies” that the Church is the ultimate authority. So, I think that you are being inconsistent to say that it’s weak in my case, but not in yours. 

   
   On the contrary, although the Bible "implies" that the Church is the ultimate authority, the Church does not teach that the Church is the ultimate authority. The Word of God, is the ultimate authority, in Tradition and Scripture. The Church is merely the servant of the Word of God.
   
   

   I had quoted Schaff saying that the fathers were diverse, if not antagonistic. And you stated that I had a misunderstanding of “unanimous consent.” Maybe I don’t have a perfect understanding of it, but the point remains that the church fathers had conflicting opinions on auricular confession, demonstrating the uncertainty of exactly what was taught in the early church.

   
   The point is, that the Word of God says the Pope and the Church are infallible. Not any single individual. Therefore, whatever is taught by individuals, the Church tests and holds on to what is good.
   
   

   Furthermore, the New Catholic Encyclopedia itself, on the very same page as the original “exomologesis” quote I shared, strongly indicates some uncertainty about the workings of confession and penance in the early church:
   “Great difficulty is caused by varying terminology and practice during the lengthy time expanse under consideration. The word “penance” was used to designate both THE ENTIRE SACRAMENTAL PROCEDURE AND THE SATISFACTION performed by the penitent… Though confession was a necessary presupposition to reception of the Church’s sacramental Penance, IT IS NOT ALWAYS CERTAIN what sort of confession was required… But to repeat, documents of the patristic period are difficult to interpret on this score, and UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT HAS NOT BEEN REACHED AMONG SCHOLARS.” (Emphasis added)

   
   Again, we follow the Church which Scripture calls the Pillar of Truth. Not the teaching of scholars, no matter how brilliant the world considers them.
   
   

   In light of this uncertainty, I find it hard to see how the Council of Trent could be dogmatic on this topic. So, I think that this council over-stepped its boundaries in saying that auricular confession was something “which the church hath ever observed from the beginning.” That was my point in all of this.

   
   There is uncertainty only for those who don't believe the Word of God which says "hear the Church" (Matt 18:17) and "the Church is the Pillar of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15). For those who believe these verses, there is no uncertainty.
   
   Sincerely,
   
   De Maria

   ReplyDelete
3. 
   De MariaOctober 13, 2011 10:00 PM

   Russell said...(Part 2)

In responding to Acts 8:20-22, Peter, and Simon Magus, you said that I didn’t see the obvious, which (according to you) was that Peter first excommunicated Simon Magus, leaving him no choice but to pray directly to God.

   
   Correct. If he didn't repent. St. Paul did the same thing in Corinth (1 Cor 5:5).
   
   

   But you are contradicting yourself when you say on the one hand, “…the ONLY recourse available to Simon Magus would be prayer DIRECTLY TO GOD,” and on the other hand, you say that “he begged forgiveness from ST. PETER.” (Emphasis mine) 

   
   That was the point. St. Peter delivered him unto Satan that he might repent. He repented and asked St. Peter to intercede for him before God.
   
   

   Once again, if auricular confession was the norm in those days, Peter would have said, “Meet me at the synagogue and I will hear your confession.” But no, he told Simon Magus to pray to God for forgiveness, himself. According to your argument (and Session 14 of the Council of Trent), Peter was not acting like a (Catholic) “priest.”

   
   He indeed was. But he was using a different weapon in the priestly arsenal for convincing the members of their flock to repent.
   
   

CONT'D

   ReplyDelete
4. 
   De MariaOctober 13, 2011 10:01 PM

   PART 2 cont'd
   Now, I would like to address the issue of the burden of proof, concerning whether the Catholic concept of auricular confession is biblical or not. I mentioned that the burden of proof is on you, since in any debate, it is the one who makes the positive assertion (e.g., “auricular confession is a biblical concept”) who bears the burden. 

   
   Where is it written? Do you have some sort of written rule from the hand of God to say that the burden of proof is on the one who makes the positive assertion? Because if you do, then I wonder why you and every other Protestant has never produced such proof for the existence of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in Scripture? I think you participated in the conversation on the Beggars all blog where they claimed that only "implied" statements were necessary.
   
   If you don't have such a direct doctrine from Scripture, then I guess you want me to follow your arbitrary rule. However, logic dictates that I follow reason. Here's my reason.
   
   1. The Scriptures explicitly state that the Church has the authority to forgive sins.
   2. All the ancient Christian religions interpreted that to mean "auricular confession".
   3. The only Christian religions which deny or reject "auricular confession" are those which came long after. Centuries after. One thousand five hundred years after.
   
   So, for me, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that the Scriptures not only do not mention auricular confession but reject it. Because Scripture suggests it, Sacred Tradition explicitly teaches it and the Church practices it. So, the burden is upon you to produce explicit Scripture proof against it.
   
   

   

You laughed and stated that the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years and has always had a priesthood. But that proves nothing. 

   
   Yes, it does. Coupled with these facts, it is evidence that the doctrine of the ministerial Priesthood was taught and practiced by the Apostles.
   1. The Old Testament is a shadow of the New. Therefore, the New Testament priesthood was casting a shadow.
   2. The New Testament strongly implies the ministerial priesthood in the verses I produced.
   3. St. Paul calls his ministry "priestly".
   4. The word "presbyter" today means "priest".
   5. Again, all the ancient Christian religions have ministerial priests. Strong evidence that this is the legacy left by the Apostles.
   
   

   Longevity is not always a reliable determining factor of truth. Hinduism has been around for more than twice as long as Christianity has, and they also have a priesthood. But that doesn’t mean that they have the truth… nor does it relieve Catholics of the burden of proof.

   
   Hinduism has been around as a loose philosophy for thousands of years. But it is not an organized religion. Try to get someone to speak for Hinduism today. You will find a thousand conflicting "gurus" will step up to claim the job.
   
   There is only one unified universal religion in this world claiming to represent God and His people. The Catholic Church. Oh and the Catholic Church has set forth its evidence for years. The burden of proof remains on those who would prove her wrong.
   
   Sincerely,
   
   De Maria

   ReplyDelete
5. 
   De MariaOctober 13, 2011 10:12 PM

   Russell said...(Part 3)

You claim to have supported auricular confession from the Scriptures, but I strongly disagree. The biblical “proof” that you offered early on was:

“2 Corinthians 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;”

This in no way proves auricular confession, nor a ministerial priesthood. This ministry of reconciliation is for ALL Christians and is accomplished through the spreading of the gospel. Yes, we all need to confess our sins, but there is nothing in this context about “sacraments” or confessing to a “priest.”

   
   I believe I also said that Catholics and Protestants read Scripture differently. For you, the ministry of reconciliation can't possebly mean the Sacrament of Confession because you do not hold the Traditions:
   2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
   Whereas, for us, that is precisely what it means. Because we understand that Jesus handed on Traditions and it is from these Traditions that the New Testament was written.
   
   

   You said:

“Scripture is very clear that God gave men the power to forgive sins:
Matthew 9:5-8
King James Version (KJV)
5For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? 6But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. 7And he arose, and departed to his house. 8But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men. 

   ”

This was already covered in the original article (see here): http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/08/hi-jacking-of-john-2023.html

   
   If it was covered there, then I responded to it in my rebuttal here, in the article we are discussing.


   
   

   Also, note that in Luke 5:18-26 (a parallel passage) Jesus said that this miracle was “in order that you may know that the SON OF MAN has authority on earth to forgive sins” (verse 24). That was His emphasis. If the power to forgive / absolve sins was given to men (such as to Catholic priests), it seems that we would certainly see examples of this in the New Testament. But we don’t.

   
   Examples of healing? We see them throughout Catholic history. Read the accounts of the canonized Saints. As for the healing which Jesus produced on that occasion, He didn't say "in order to be forgiven of sin, you must first be healed of an ailment." He proved that He had the power to forgive sins and He passed that power on to the Church. That is all. Your attempt to tie the two together in perpetuity is not even hinted at.
   
   Sincerely,
   
   De Maria

   ReplyDelete
6. 
   De MariaOctober 13, 2011 10:24 PM

   Russell said...(Part 4)

You also said: 

“It is also clear that God appointed men to rule over us and to be responsible over our souls to whom we should submit and obey. Protestants do their best to deny and ignore this teaching:
Matthew 18:17
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”

Yes, we are to take certain matters to the church (the assembly of “called out ones”) for judgment. But ON WHAT BASIS does the church make judgments? Do they simply judge an issue based on a feeling, or on human reasoning? Absolutely not. The judgments they make are (or should be) based on the Scriptures. The church is an authority, but God’s Word is the ultimate authority for the church. No, we don’t deny Matthew 18:17, we just deny that the Catholic Church is the final authority.

   
   You are contradicting yourself. Matt 18:17 says, "hear the Church". But you are making excuses not to do so. In addition, the Church teaches that the Word of God, in Tradition and Scripture, is the ultimate authority. She remains the Servant of the Word of God.
   
   

   And finally, you used: 

“Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”

Yes, God has appointed men to be responsible (to some extent) over our souls. But ONLY to those men who actually follow Christ and obey His Word (1 Corinthians 11:1). This submission that Hebrews 13:17 speaks of is not just blind obedience.

   
   I didn't say it was blind obedience. Did I?
   
   

   Would we expect a member of a church that teaches heresy to honor God by obeying and submitting to that church's leaders? No, the only way for him to honor God is to leave that heretical church and obey church leaders who honor the Bible. So, we can’t obey this verse in Hebrews if those we are following are unscriptural to start with.

   
   That is true. In the end, we must all rely upon the grace of God and our own powers of discernment. I strongly recommend a great deal of prayer that God should lead you to the truth. As for me, I have compared the Scriptures to the teachings of the Protestants and found the Protestant teachings wanting. I find it remarkable that anyone can believe the ideas of Scripture alone and faith alone.
   
   I have also compared the teachings of the Catholic Church to Scripture and found that none of them, not one, contradicts Scripture as is so often alleged by Protestants.
   
   I confess, that for a long time, I held to the prejudices spread around in the highly Protestant society of the US against Catholic Teaching. But when I actualy studied the matter, they fell down like a house of cards. And I, like you were, was raised Catholic.
   
   In the end, God will reward your efforts to seek Him. But as for us, we walk amongst the Saints in this life, due to the Sacraments of eternal life.
   
   Good to hear from you again. I look forward to your responses on the priesthood.
   
   Sincerely,
   
   De Maria