Why Irish Catholics Don't Feel The Need To Go To Confession

ljohnson

become a protestant its much fun and rangers will win the league lol

prinz

underclass wrote: »

You might like to think that. You need to listen to the words of absolution, the sacramental forgiveness of the Church through the ordained priest..

I listen to the words of absolution from God.

homer911

In Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:45, we read that the temple curtain was torn in two at the moment of Christ's death.

For an average Jew (and now Christian), this was the spritual equivalent of a hole been blown in the side of Fort Knox - If my Bible history is correct, nobody but the High Priest was allowed in the Holy of Holies and he acted as mediator for the Jews, but now there is no need for anyone to act as a mediator between God a man, because God himself, in the form of Jesus, is our mediator and we can all come freely into his presence

underclass

prinz wrote: »

I listen to the words of absolution from God.

Do you claim to be in full communion with the Church?

opinion guy

underclass wrote: »

I went to confession last Saturday morning in my local parish: two people and myself presented themselves. This, in a parish of several thousands. We must be the holiest bunch of people ever, seeing as 99% of Mass-goers present themselves for Communion.

The need to confess and repent has been an underlying theme of many of the Pope's recent statements (his youtube channel is excellent btw) - are we simply not listening? Or maybe it's just too hard for people to get on their knees and ask for forgiveness "in this day and age"?

Aren't you a bundle of pious fun there eh ?

underclass wrote: »

Indeed. And I have no doubt that this is the case. They need to be explicitly told that all Catholics must confess their sins here on earth or else they live in mortal danger.

The softy-softy approach of the Irish clergy evidently isn't working.

Who are you to tell anyone what they must or must not do ?

underclass wrote: »

Indeed. People are too preoccupied with other things in their lives. I think all parishes should be having special times dedicated to confession after today's letter from the Pope. I'm talking every morning and evening for the next month.

Would this be the letter from the Pope where he shirks responsibility for the cover up of mass child-abuse on to the Bishops of one country, when very clearly it is an international scandal which the Vatican have been aware of for YEARS.

underclass wrote: »

Confession doesn't have to take place in a church. It can be heard anywhere. And yes, a priest is required afaic. Those once-a-year general absolutions don't cut it either afaic: they're designed for periods (such as war times, famines, catastrophes) where it is impossible for a priest to hear everyone's confession.

Again - who are you to say this ?

Frankly I'd suggest you have a little think about arrogance and judgementalism. Let he who has not sinned and all of that....

kelly1 wrote: »

This is something that bugs me. Why have so many people stopped going to confession? It's a shame really.

I think it's a clear example of the secularization that the Pope spoke about in his pastoral letter. The Bishops need to start encouraging people to avail of the sacrament more often.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say its possibly the complete, sustained and abject failure of the church to take responsiblity for its own sins.

underclass wrote: »

In my opinion, the Irish Bishops need tell their flock in the clearest of terms to confess and repent or don't present themselves for Holy Communion.

hahaahahaha. God I really hope they do this.

underclass wrote: »

A bishop who is not in a pretty much permanent state of grace is not fit for office imo. Granted, we're all sinners, but when bishops do sin (and they do), they should go out of their way to confess without delay when they're engaged in such important work of the Church. My humble opinion anyway. Don't know if it matters at all.

Anyway, my view is that if the people are rotten, it's no surprise that this spreads to the clergy.

Humble opinion. Interesting choice of words for someone so high and mighty as to preach that a bishop must be in a permanent state of grace.

underclass

opinion guy wrote: »

Humble opinion. Interesting choice of words for someone so high and mighty as to preach that a bishop must be in a permanent state of grace.

You might like to scoff. I have no doubt that every Bishop in this country is in a state of grace 99.5% of the time. I have faith in the Church, despite all that has gone on.

kelly1

sparkfire wrote: »

I am a practising Catholic yet I never go to Confession and I probably never will. I have always been deeply uncomfortable with the apparent 'authority' of priests who supposedly have the power to forgive me my sins. I believe that we are all equal before God and that forgiveness is issued by God alone. I simply do not understand why God would need to issue forgiveness through another human being. Indeed some of the recent problems of the church could be attributed to the deference of ordinary Catholics to clergy because of this 'authority'.

Hello, you might want to think about why Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sin.

John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

opinion guy

underclass wrote: »

You might like to scoff. I have no doubt that every Bishop in this country is in a state of grace 99.5% of the time. I have faith in the Church, despite all that has gone on.

Well recent events would make that seem highly unlikely would they not. How many have offered their resignations now ? 4 ?

Stephentlig

sparkfire wrote: »

I am a practising Catholic yet I never go to Confession and I probably never will. I have always been deeply uncomfortable with the apparent 'authority' of priests who supposedly have the power to forgive me my sins. I believe that we are all equal before God and that forgiveness is issued by God alone. I simply do not understand why God would need to issue forgiveness through another human being. Indeed some of the recent problems of the church could be attributed to the deference of ordinary Catholics to clergy because of this 'authority'.

Practising Catholics go to confession Sparkfire. you fail to understand that the priest does not have the authority to forgive sins but has been given the sacrament of Holy orders through which God (who is the only authority) forgives your sins. He has been placed in this position by Jesus Christ.

You say you dont understand why God would need to go through someone to forgive sins, but what you fail to understand is that this is the way God has gone about doing it, and it pleases him to carry it out this way.

Both Scripture and Tradition does not harbour your belief, you therefore must give more thought as to what it means to be a practising Catholic, for to disagree with an infallible dogma of the church is to class yourself as a Catholic who has not yet perceived or has an incomplete view of the Truth.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Stephentlig

I don't think it's so much about confession for Bishops as such, or sinning in itself among the clergy, but about taking responsibility for it. The church has not, in the eyes of many, taken responsibility for some truly appalling things done in it's name and in it's houses; but individual clergymen still expect to be heeded when they instruct others on how to be absolved of sin? Their credibility is severely damaged and people have lost confidence in them - and they have been terribly slow to recognise or address such concerns.

It is true that we must practice what we preach, but you fail to comprehend that they have a duty to preach about confession regardless. for when they preach about the truth, it is the Holy Spirit that speaks through them regardless of their own sins.

It is still no excuse to not go to confession for when they approach a bishop/priest, regardless of their sins they are approaching God to confess their sins who through the bishop absolves the penitent.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Stephentlig

Glenster wrote: »

I've never had a problem going to confession. I might not have liked doing it as a kid (facing up to all the things you've done wrong and that), but I never had a moral objection to the idea.

That said, I would always go to confession in a confessional, I really dont like the idea of doing it face to face with a priest (that's what she said), the only time i've confessed outside a confessional was in Rome and the expression on his face was really off-putting.

It's only natural to feel weird when confessing to a priest, to assume that you are confessing to him rather than through him. A confessional is a good way to get over that.

Thanks Glenster, although I dont mind public confession, I just thought I'd inform everyone that it was the Irish who invented the confessional box in the 6th century.

Us Irish, we are so shy lol

ShowMeTheCash

kelly1 wrote: »

This is something that bugs me. Why have so many people stopped going to confession? It's a shame really.

I think it's a clear example of the secularization that the Pope spoke about in his pastoral letter. The Bishops need to start encouraging people to avail of the sacrament more often.

Look no disrespect, for generations people where told what to believe without question, truth is if you where born in a muslim country you would be a muslim born in a cathlic country you would be a catholic etc....

A priest at best is a learnerd individual that can help with spiritual guidence, he is not some magic man with a magic telephone to god.

opinion guy

Stephentlig wrote: »

It is true that we must practice what we preach, but you fail to comprehend that they have a duty to preach about confession regardless. for when they preach about the truth, it is the Holy Spirit that speaks through them regardless of their own sins.

It is still no excuse to not go to confession for when they approach a bishop/priest, regardless of their sins they are approaching God to confess their sins who through the bishop absolves the penitent.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Ok lets say this - there are genuine spiritual priest and there are charlatans out there - and there are many in between. I don't think anyone could deny that these different priests exist. So lets ask you this - when you go to confession - how do you know the priest you are talking to is devout and spiritual, or a charlatan ?

ShowMeTheCash

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok lets say this - there are genuine spiritual priest and there are charlatans out there - and there are many in between. I don't think anyone could deny that these different priests exist. So lets ask you this - when you go to confession - how do you know the priest you are talking to is devout and spiritual, or a charlatan ?

You don't - I think any logical person, i mean someone that has not been brain washed with years of doctrine would look at it and think it a joke.

Who wrote the bible - we did.
So we made up all these rules and no one is allowed to question them.
Hmm OK.

There difference between a charatan and a devout spiritual leader?
Does it matter?

hinault

underclass wrote: »

In my opinion, the Irish Bishops need tell their flock in the clearest of terms to confess and repent or don't present themselves for Holy Communion.

Agreed.
This message needs to be re-iterated by the clergy to the faithful.

I said this earlier, I haven't been to confession for a long time.
Even though I got to Mass every week, I would never consider taking Communion because I have not been to confession for a long time.

I don't want to judge anyone but I wonder how many communicants, who receive the Eucharist each week have been to confession recently?

I have resolved to get to confession more regularly

Stephentlig

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok lets say this - there are genuine spiritual priest and there are charlatans out there - and there are many in between. I don't think anyone could deny that these different priests exist. So lets ask you this - when you go to confession - how do you know the priest you are talking to is devout and spiritual, or a charlatan ?

I dont know unless I hear him say something that is contrary to faith ( doctrine ) and morals (discipline). but I dont think about that when going to confession, all I know is that I confess my sins to God through the priest and I receive absolution from God through the priest. Thats all I'm there for and if the priest by his own choosing invites me to listen to his advice then I do so but with respect and caution.

If it's spiritual advice I seek from a priest, i'll know whats good and whats bad by measuring it with faith and morals to see if what he has said is consistent with the faith.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Stephentlig

hinault wrote: »

Agreed.
This message needs to be re-iterated by the clergy to the faithful.

I said this earlier, I haven't been to confession for a long time.
Even though I got to Mass every week, I would never consider taking Communion because I have not been to confession for a long time.

I don't want to judge anyone but I wonder how many communicants, who receive the Eucharist each week have been to confession recently?

I have resolved to get to confession more regularly

Hi Hinault, both my wife and I go to confession once a week.
Even if my sins arent mortal I still go as its seen as a pious and Holy act to do so.

Pax Christi
Stephen

hinault

Stephentlig wrote: »

Hi Hinault, both my wife and I go to confession once a week.
Even if my sins arent mortal I still go as its seen as a pious and Holy act to do so.

Pax Christi
Stephen

fair dues to you for going each week.

I haven't been to confession since Good Friday 2008:o

Stephentlig

hinault wrote: »

fair dues to you for going each week.

I haven't been to confession since Good Friday 2008:o

relax Hinault, I'm embarrassed I dont go every day :pac: lol I need it lol :P

nobody is asking you to dive into it straight away, take it bit by bit, Our Lady Queen of peace in Medugorje reccommends that we at least go once a month. so what you do is set aside a date that you go once a month and do your best to stick to it. read up on it and visit sites and ask for the testimonys of those who had been away from confession for a long time and had just returned to it, this will encourage you to go also.

Pax Christi
Stephen

opinion guy

Stephentlig wrote: »

I dont know unless I hear him say something that is contrary to faith ( doctrine ) and morals (discipline). but I dont think about that when going to confession, all I know is that I confess my sins to God through the priest and I receive absolution from God through the priest. Thats all I'm there for and if the priest by his own choosing invites me to listen to his advice then I do so but with respect and caution.

If it's spiritual advice I seek from a priest, i'll know whats good and whats bad by measuring it with faith and morals to see if what he has said is consistent with the faith.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Ok thats fair enough. But if you have gone to a 'bad' priest - does it not count. I mean for all you know said hypothetical 'bad' priest may have secretly renounced his faith, no ?

antiskeptic

Stephentlig wrote: »

I'm afraid that it is you who is missing the point and not reading scripture properly,

Given the dearth of scripture on many subjects close to the heart of Roman Catholic doctrine, it less a matter of not reading properly and more a matter of reading your doctrine into the text. For example:

John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.

The text does nothing of the sort. Set your counter to nul, press start and watch the assumptions mount.

Jesus was speaking to his apostles? Not at all, the text surrounding this verse has him speak to people described as his disciples. I'm a disciple of Jesus Christ so assume the verse applies to me too. If clarity is the aim then this position is clearer from the text.

You carry unwarranted assumptions into the text (from your tradition presumably). There is absolutely nothing - bar an assumption that involves hearing others sins - about hearing sins. It is possible to be sinned against, know you have been sinned against and forgive sin without a word exhanging hand(sic). You most certainly cannot extract the disciples as intermediatory confession hearers from the text. You can only insert your tradition.

If you left your tradition at the door and approached the text on it's own merits then none of what you say floats. Not a piece of it.

Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man. But that does not preclude Jesus from applying His role as mediator anyway He sees fit.

True.

In fact, right before Paul says that "Jesus is the one mediator" (1 Tim 2:5), Paul appeals for mediation from others besides Christ, by urging that "supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men" (1 Tim 2:1). How can Paul appeal to mediation from others if Jesus is our only mediator?

Paul appeals to what he says above. The word mediation doesn't appear on that list - you've decided yourself to gel the words Paul uses and the word mediation.

Because, as St. Paul answers, "this is good, and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:3-4). Therefore, although Jesus is our one mediator, He has charged us to be intercessors, or subordinate mediators with Him. We are able to do this by virtue of our baptismal priesthood.

All of which say's nothing about priests as mediators (less subordinate to the Mediator than your baptismal priesthood mediation). It merely says other believers have a role to play.

Ever seen an organogram (eg: a company's management structure line diagram)? You get line roles where people report into someone directly above them. This is the organogram implied by "one mediator between God and man: man > Christ > God. Then there are side roles , which support the functioning of the line structure (HR is a good example in a company, carrying out training and thus enabling staff to carry out their duties). The side roles are support, they are not essential to the essential functioning of the mainline structure.

underclass

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok thats fair enough. But if you have gone to a 'bad' priest - does it not count. I mean for all you know said hypothetical 'bad' priest may have secretly renounced his faith, no ?

I have no doubt that there are priests who are also covert members of the Freemasons in this country.

Stephentlig

antiskeptic wrote: »

Given the dearth of scripture on many subjects close to the heart of Roman Catholic doctrine, it less a matter of not reading properly and more a matter of reading your doctrine into the text. For example:

Jesus was speaking to his apostles? Not at all, the text surrounding this verse has him speak to people described as his disciples. I'm a disciple of Jesus Christ so assume the verse applies to me too. If clarity is the aim then this position is clearer from the text.

The verse does not apply to you, for we cannot retain the sins of people, nor can we forgive the sins of people in persona Christi ( in the person of Christ) Jesus sends them as the father sends him out to forgive the sins of many. you are imposing your own view upon the passage rather than reading it in its proper form.

John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.

Paul appeals to what he says above. The word mediation doesn't appear on that list - you've decided yourself to gel the words Paul uses and the word mediation.

Not at all, although the word ''mediation'' is not there its clear that by him asking for prayer and supplications to be given is seen as mediation. when I ask you to pray for me, you become a subordinate mediator to God. its plain and simple Antiskeptic.

Stephentlig

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok thats fair enough. But if you have gone to a 'bad' priest - does it not count. I mean for all you know said hypothetical 'bad' priest may have secretly renounced his faith, no ?

True but if he had renounced his faith, God would simply take that into account and although he had renounced his faith and no longer carried the sacrament of Holy orders I'd just go to another confession somewhere else.

By simply going into these confessions with such fantasies in ones head is silly, and is no excuse not to go to confession. should our trust be abused in any away, we look to God, forgive the abuser and we seek justice.

God would be pleased with me anyway regardless.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Tim Robbins

sparkfire wrote: »

I am a practising Catholic yet I never go to Confession and I probably never will. I have always been deeply uncomfortable with the apparent 'authority' of priests who supposedly have the power to forgive me my sins.

Well then are you really a practising Catholic?

I believe that we are all equal before God and that forgiveness is issued by God alone. I simply do not understand why God would need to issue forgiveness through another human being. Indeed some of the recent problems of the church could be attributed to the deference of ordinary Catholics to clergy because of this 'authority'.

Sounds like you are closer to some Protestant Theology.

opinion guy

Stephentlig wrote: »

True but if he had renounced his faith, God would simply take that into account and although he had renounced his faith and no longer carried the sacrament of Holy orders I'd just go to another confession somewhere else.

By simply going into these confessions with such fantasies in ones head is silly, and is no excuse not to go to confession. should our trust be abused in any away, we look to God, forgive the abuser and we seek justice.

God would be pleased with me anyway regardless.

Pax Christi
Stephen

But my point is if you have to go to someone annointed to have the power to receive the confession by God, you only have that persons word on it that they are a legitimate priest.

underclass wrote: »

I have no doubt that there are priests who are also covert members of the Freemasons in this country.

Um. Dunno what to say to that.

sparkfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well then are you really a practising Catholic?


Sounds like you are closer to some Protestant Theology.

I do not agree with everything the Catholic Church says. An example would be Papal Infallability. However I do agree with most of it and I attend mass every week therefore I consider myself a practising Catholic.

ShowMeTheCash

sparkfire wrote: »

I do not agree with everything the Catholic Church says. An example would be Papal Infallability. However I do agree with most of it and I attend mass every week therefore I consider myself a practising Catholic.

Good point - The church is simply an institution, and like any institution corruption and greed will set in not matter how honest or with what good intentions it started with.

Any institution that trys to declare itself as "infallable" people really need to careful. This is how cults operate, they do not like people thinking for themselves.

"Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities"
Voltaire

Tim Robbins

sparkfire wrote: »

I do not agree with everything the Catholic Church says. An example would be Papal Infallability. However I do agree with most of it and I attend mass every week therefore I consider myself a practising Catholic.

But sure papal infallability is one the key beliefs of the Catholic Church and one of the key reasons why the reformation happened.

Someone who attends Catholic mass, but you're hardly Catholic if you reject Catholic doctrine. You do know it's the Pope who tells the Priest / Church what to believe in?

sparkfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But sure papal infallability is one the key beliefs of the Catholic Church and one of the key reasons why the reformation happened.

Someone who attends Catholic mass, but you're hardly Catholic if you reject Catholic doctrine. You do know it's the Pope who tells the Priest / Church what to believe in?

Papal Infallability was defined in 1870 in response to the growing popularity of Liberalism.

On your second point many priests have called on the Vatican to reform so they obviously do not agree with the Vatican on everything and neither do I.

Tim Robbins

sparkfire wrote: »

Papal Infallability was defined in 1870 in response to the growing popularity of Liberalism.

On your second point many priests have called on the Vatican to reform so they obviously do not agree with the Vatican on everything and neither do I.

Oh but you'll notice anyone ever calling on the Pope to resign or really challenging the Pope on anything.

They skirt the issue rather than admitting their Christianity is of Protestant form.

prinz

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Oh but you'll notice anyone ever calling on the Pope to resign or really challenging the Pope on anything.
They skirt the issue rather than admitting their Christianity is of Protestant form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_K%C3%BCng

Has often openly challenged the Vatican.

Saint Ruth

sparkfire wrote: »

I do not agree with everything the Catholic Church says. An example would be Papal Infallability. However I do agree with most of it and I attend mass every week therefore I consider myself a practising Catholic.

I presume you don't agree with the Dogma that those who don't go to confession at least once a year commit a mortal sin (and hence are doomed to hell)?

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/dogma.htm

Oh, and receiving communion in the state of mortal sin is also a mortal sin...

I haven't gone for a few years so I don't go to communion, but at the time I thought it was very cathartic...

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But sure papal infallability is one the key beliefs of the Catholic Church and one of the key reasons why the reformation happened.

Not unless one of the Reformers hopped into a time machine and zipped forward three centuries to the date when Papal Infallibility became part of the dogma of the RCC.

Someone who attends Catholic mass, but you're hardly Catholic if you reject Catholic doctrine. You do know it's the Pope who tells the Priest / Church what to believe in?

Lots of Catholics disagree with points of Catholic doctrine. Have a chat with Fr Iggy O'Donovan in Drogheda some time. He thinks confession is a load of crock, advocates married priests, and sees condoms as a vital part of fighting AIDS - but, last time I checked, he is still a Catholic priest.

Stephentlig

sparkfire wrote: »

Papal Infallability was defined in 1870 in response to the growing popularity of Liberalism.

On your second point many priests have called on the Vatican to reform so they obviously do not agree with the Vatican on everything and neither do I.

Papal infallibility was defined in Matthew 16.

for more on the explanation on the infallible dogma of infallibility open up your Cathechism, if there is anything you disagree with in there, then you must consider yourself an unpractising Catholic.

priests who challenge the churches infallibile dogmas and teach others to do the same, should be reported to the local bishop for further investigation. for when your at mass and you hear a priest speaking heresy from the pulpit you are no longer attending mass and you should report it to the local bishop.

If you have any more queries into the faith and wish to express your views of church doctrine then you should contact Catholic apologist John Salza who will put you on the right track, the e-mail is johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com

with priests such as the one PDN mentioned, its no wonder that sparkfire and prinz believe in what they do.

Pax Christi
Stephen

homer911

I'm trying to refrain from denominational comments, but...

Stephentlig wrote: »

Papal infallibility was defined in Matthew 16.

Really???? It amazes me how people read things into rather than out of Bible passages

if there is anything you disagree with in there, then you must consider yourself an unpractising Catholic.

Thats a very brash statement! Its also extremely judgemental of you! Its that kind of dogmatic attitude that has turned a lot of people off the Catholic Faith - a little more Christian understanding wouldn't go amiss - I hope you never suffer doubts in your faith or you will be hanging yourself out to dry.

prinz

Stephentlig wrote: »

..for more on the explanation on the infallible dogma of infallibility open up your Cathechism, if there is anything you disagree with in there, then you must consider yourself an unpractising Catholic.

How do you explain the fact that prior to 1870 the Catechism as taught in Ireland specifically excluded infallibility, and that these sections were simply dropped from the Catechism and never explained/never changed etc?

In the nineteenth century, before the 1870 definition, two catechisms in use in Ireland explicitly denied the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. In answer to the question of whether the pope was infallible they suggested that such an idea was a Protestant invention made to discredit Roman Catholics. After the formal declaration of the Pope's Infallibility by Pius IX, this question and answer were quietly dropped in subsequent editions, with no explanation for the change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility referring to Salmon, George (1914) The Infallibility of the Church John Murray pp.26-27

sparkfire

Stephentlig wrote: »

Papal infallibility was defined in Matthew 16.

for more on the explanation on the infallible dogma of infallibility open up your Cathechism, if there is anything you disagree with in there, then you must consider yourself an unpractising Catholic.

priests who challenge the churches infallibile dogmas and teach others to do the same, should be reported to the local bishop for further investigation. for when your at mass and you hear a priest speaking heresy from the pulpit you are no longer attending mass and you should report it to the local bishop.

If you have any more queries into the faith and wish to express your views of church doctrine then you should contact Catholic apologist John Salza who will put you on the right track, the e-mail is johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com

with priests such as the one PDN mentioned, its no wonder that sparkfire and prinz believe in what they do.

Pax Christi
Stephen

History would suggest that Papal Infallability is wrong. The sale of idulgences in a previous era is confirmation of this.

Secondly Prior to the reformation corruption was widespread in the Catholic Church. If people had not challenged the church at this time then this corruption would not have been dealt with. Eventually the Catholic church reformed itself during the counter reformation. Therefore not only do i believe it is acceptable to disagree with the church on some issues but I also believe we have a moral obligation to challenge it when we feel it is heading in the wrong direction.

goat2

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Again you are missing the point - You want to confess to a priest go ahead, no where does it say you need to... that a priest is the only mediator between man and god.

and thank the lord for that

Stephentlig

prinz wrote: »

How do you explain the fact that prior to 1870 the Catechism as taught in Ireland specifically excluded infallibility, and that these sections were simply dropped from the Catechism and never explained/never changed etc?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility referring to Salmon, George (1914) The Infallibility of the Church John Murray pp.26-27

qouting from sicki wicki certainly does you no favours Prinz,

That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholicdogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation. The teaching of the Vatican Council is to be found in Session III, cap. 4, where it is declared that "the doctrine of faith, which God has revealed, has not been proposed as a philosophical discovery to be improved upon by human talent, but has been committed as a Divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted by her"; and in Session IV, cap. 4, where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra "enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals". Even the Vatican Council, it will be seen, only introduces the general dogma of the Church's infallibility as distinct from that of the pope obliquely and indirectly, following in this respect the traditional usage according to which the dogma is assumed as an implicate of ecumenical magisterial authority. Instances of this will be given below and from these it will appear that, though the word infallibility as a technical term hardly occurs at all in the early councils or in the Fathers, the thing signified by it was understood and believed in and acted upon from the beginning. We shall confine our attention in this section to the general question, reserving the doctrine of papal infallibility for special treatment. This arrangement is adopted not because it is the best or most logical, but because it enables us to travel a certain distance in the friendly company of those who cling to the general doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility while rejecting the papal claims. Taking the evidence both scriptural and traditional as it actually stands, one may fairly maintain that it proves papal infallibility in a simpler, more direct, and more cogent way than it proves the general doctrine independently; and there can be no doubt but that this is so if we accept as the alternative to papal infallibility the vague and unworkable theory of ecumenical infallibility which most High-Church Anglicans would substitute for Catholic teaching. Nor are the Eastern schismatical Churches much better off than the Anglican in this respect, except that each has retained a sort of virtual belief in its own infallibility, and that in practice they have been more faithful in guarding the doctrines infallibly defined by the early ecumenical councils. Yet certain Anglicans and all the Eastern Orthodox agree with Catholics in maintaining that Christ promised infallibility to the true Church, and we welcome their support as against the general Protestant denial of this truth.

To find out why you and sparkfire are most well mis-informed, visit the following link and peruse it entirely.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

I never thought I'd ever see the day when I'd have to defend holy mother church from her very own.

Pax Christi
Stephen

jill_valentine

It's been demonstrated why Wikipedia is a valid source for our purposes on previous occasions, as I recall.

You are welcome to your own narrow interpretation of Catholic doctrine, of course, but it does your own credibility no favours to take a potshot at other posters who do not share it.

antiskeptic

Stephentlig wrote: »

The verse does not apply to you, for we cannot retain the sins of people, nor can we forgive the sins of people in persona Christi ( in the person of Christ) Jesus sends them as the father sends him out to forgive the sins of many. you are imposing your own view upon the passage rather than reading it in its proper form

I've greyed out the imported doctrine which exists not in the text and have left your general assertion. By all means support the doctrine with another verse if you like.

The verse doesn't specify against whom the sin forgiven is committed. But we know that at least one type of sin is forgiveable by us ("as we forgive those who trespass against us") Granted, I cannot forgive that element of the offence against me that offends God. But I can surely forgive that element of an offence against me? And if not forgiven by me, it strikes me that a sin is, by default, retained by me.

There is no warrant in the verse for supposing people forgiving sin not committed against them personally. To suppose that would be importing notions (unless, as I've done here, you can support the notion somewhat from elsewhere in scripture)

John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.

As you might appreciate, others see the significance of this as born/born again.

Whatever, there is no doctrinal support presented for the RC notion of what is an inarguably special event. I'd only go so far as to hazard a blind guess (truly, I haven't looked it up) that the Lord doesn't breathe on the apostlies. Rather, the Lord breathes on the disciples (ie: if any word is used in the locality to describe them then disciples will be it)

I'm a disciple. I've had the Lords spirit breath into me.

Not at all, although the word ''mediation'' is not there its clear that by him asking for prayer and supplications to be given is seen as mediation. when I ask you to pray for me, you become a subordinate mediator to God. its plain and simple Antiskeptic.

You seem to have ignored the illustration coimpletely.

I'll leave you with the fact that the word mediation doesn't appear and the attempt to suppose mediation occuring can only be made clear by further argument. Simply saying one word means another - without support is a weak basis for your position.

I'll note too that the overall case "priests as mediators" isn't in any way assisted by this verse - which you suppose has believers of all sorts mediating between God and man.

J C

Stephentlig wrote: »

Pax Christi
Stephen

... May the peace and blessing of Jesus Christ be with you too.:)

ShowMeTheCash

Stephentlig wrote: »

Papal infallibility was defined in Matthew 16.

for more on the explanation on the infallible dogma of infallibility open up your Cathechism, if there is anything you disagree with in there, then you must consider yourself an unpractising Catholic.

priests who challenge the churches infallibile dogmas and teach others to do the same, should be reported to the local bishop for further investigation. for when your at mass and you hear a priest speaking heresy from the pulpit you are no longer attending mass and you should report it to the local bishop.

If you have any more queries into the faith and wish to express your views of church doctrine then you should contact Catholic apologist John Salza who will put you on the right track, the e-mail is johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com

with priests such as the one PDN mentioned, its no wonder that sparkfire and prinz believe in what they do.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Maybe the are more enlightened than you?

Have you ever had a spiritual experience? Who are you to say what it right and what is wrong.

Given an example - God speaks to you tomorrow and asks you do something that flys in the face of Catholic dogma - what would you do?

J C

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well then are you really a practising Catholic?

... the most important question is are you Saved?

prinz

Stephentlig wrote: »

qouting from sicki wicki certainly does you no favours Prinz..

Which is why I made sure to reference the book it came from. Is that book 'sick' too?

goat2

goat2 wrote: »

i fully agree with you
i have not comitted any sins in my life so far

why should i then go near a confession box

Slav

goat2 wrote: »

goat2 wrote: »

i fully agree with you
i have not comitted any sins in my life so far

why should i then go near a confession box

You should not.

In fact you should not go near the Church and Christ at all. They are for us sinners only. Exclusively. No exceptions.

homer911

goat2 wrote: »

why should i then go near a confession box

how about for the sin of lieing?

or for boasting?

Stephentlig

The verse doesn't specify against whom the sin forgiven is committed. But we know that at least one type of sin is forgiveable by us ("as we forgive those who trespass against us") Granted, I cannot forgive that element of the offence against me that offends God. But I can surely forgive that element of an offence against me? And if not forgiven by me, it strikes me that a sin is, by default, retained by me.

There is no warrant in the verse for supposing people forgiving sin not committed against them personally. To suppose that would be importing notions (unless, as I've done here, you can support the notion somewhat from elsewhere in scripture)

It doesnt have to specify whom against it is commited, we already know that when we commit a sin we offend God. we forgive those who offend us for their offence, but we can not forgive their sin, which only God can do. Jesus in scripture goes about forgiving people their sins, which the Jews were completly offended by, because they knew that only God could forgive sins, but as Jesus points out to us ''But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,'' He then says to the apostles later on in John:20:21 that "He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" we then see that through the laying on of hands, paul had received through apostolic succession the sacrament of Holy orders which he then notifys us of in his letter to corinth "But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."

Apostolic succession can be seen in the first chapter of the Acts "15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty

16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: 17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. 26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.


Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric") is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."
Acts 1:22 - literally, "one must be ordained" to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority.