As with all topics that potentially divide certain denominations, specifically in this case, catholics and protestants, one must prayerfully consider how God is working in their own lives. While I believe words have meaning and practices should always honor God, there are right answers, whether God has given it to us to understand or not.
According to this link; here is the official definition based on the Catholic faith and tradition.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm
Penance is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ in which forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is granted through the priest's absolution to those who with true sorrow confess their sins and promise to satisfy for the same. It is called a "sacrament" not simply a function or ceremony, because it is an outward sign instituted by Christ to impart grace to the soul. As an outward sign it comprises the actions of the penitent in presenting himself to the priest and accusing himself of his sins, and the actions of the priest in pronouncing absolution and imposing satisfaction. This whole procedure is usually called, from one of its parts, "confession", and it is said to take place in the "tribunal ofpenance", because it is a judicial process in which the penitent is at once the accuser, the person accused, and the witness, while the priest pronounces judgment and sentence. The grace conferred is deliverance from the guilt of sin and, in the case of mortal sin, from its eternal punishment; hence also reconciliation with God, justification. Finally, the confession is made not in the secrecy of the penitent's heart nor to a layman as friend and advocate, nor to a representative of human authority, but to a duly ordained priest with requisite jurisdiction and with the "power of the keys", i.e., the power to forgive sins which Christ granted to His Church.
Protestants typically believe that you are justified by faith and not by works.
Paul tells us this in Romans 5:1 - I find it interesting that in his letter to the Romans, where the Catholic faith originated, he is teaching this specific principle.
1Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a]have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we[b] rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3Not only so, but we[c] also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us
Question: "How can salvation be not of works when faith is required? Isn't believing a work?"
Answer: Our salvation depends solely upon Jesus Christ. He is our substitute, taking sin’s penalty (2 Corinthians 5:21); He is our Savior from sin (John 1:29); He is the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). The work necessary to provide salvation was fully accomplished by Jesus Himself, who lived a perfect life, took God’s judgment for sin, and rose again from the dead (Hebrews 10:12).
The Bible is quite clear that our own works do not help merit salvation. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done” (Titus 3:5). “Not of works” (Ephesians 2:9). “There is none righteous, no not one” (Romans 3:10). This means that offering sacrifices, keeping the commandments, going to church, being baptized, and other good deeds are incapable of saving anyone. No matter how “good” we are, we can never measure up to God’s standard of holiness (Romans 3:23; Matthew 19:17; Isaiah 64:6). http://www.gotquestions.org/faith-work.html
So while I believe that I don't need to confess my sins to a priest, it's not necessarily wrong for someone else to. However, it is given to God only to forgive sins. Since sin is defined as being separate from God, only God can repair or forgive trespass against himself. Think of it this way;
can I forgive you for something you did to my father? No, ofcourse not. And even if my father bestowed on me the right to say the words, he cannot accept apology from anyone but the transgressor. This changed for believers when Christ came to the earth. He became for all who would be saved, the intermediary. His blood covers, not removes, our sins. We are not fully glorified until we reach heaven.
Again, don't be misled. The traditions of men do not seperate them from God. But, it is through the traditions of men that seperation can occur, when a man takes up his tradition over a relationship with Christ. This is demonstrated all throughout the Bible, especially in the Gospels by the Pharisees.
32 comments:
A well-thought-out and intelligent post. You have explained a controversial concept in a very understandable way and without heavy-handed judgment.
I am not a Catholic and do not practice confession/penance as described here, but do agree that confession to an authority is a great way to stay true to the faith. But it must not take the place of real faith and must not get in the way of grasping the Grace of God.
did you just read the first paragraph in the New Advent link or did you read the whole thing?
Karin -
I read about 1/3 of the way down and felt like it coincided with my knowledge of the subject so I peeled off. Do you think I missed something?
Seraphim...
Yeah I do think you missed something ;)
Perhaps I need to do a post on my blog regarding the Sacrament of Penance.
May I ask Seraphim, in reading your posts I get the impression that you are of the Protestant faith, is that correct?
After his Resurrection, Jesus told the apostles, “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained” (John 20:23).
The Letter of James says, “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful” (James 5:16).
Karin,
Your use of scripture is excellent. Unfortunately your knowledge of context is lacking. Specifically in James, he is teaching "how" to be a Christian. And you should pray to one another and even confess your sins. But here's why.
Because God resists the proud and it's through transparency and contrition that you can be relieved of the debt that you owe God. The Church is a body of believers and paul teaches that we are to admonish one another and reprove one another. Well, if no one ever confessed their wrong doing to anyone, it would a little difficult to do that.
As far as John 20:23 - you've got one verse that ties the Catholic faith together regarding divine appointment. Don't forget that Jesus was speaking to ALL the apostles, not just Peter. So, I think that breaks down your theory as well. Without a little context from you, I'm just not willing to debate that verse over and over and over. I've demonstrated a knowledge of context. You repeating the verse with the pointed intent that you've been wrongly taught, will never make it accurate.
So, give us (me) some context with how you know that provides Peter the ability to be the first Pope.
Be clear, I'm not debating that we can forgive one another for our sins against one another. And we're commanded to. However, that does not provide me unilateral, ability to forgive anyone's sins, if their sin was not committed against me.
If you sinned yesterday by stealing from your employer, I couldn't ever forgive you that sin. Neither could anyone else, save God in Heaven. Though, if the person you stole it from draw their new life from Jesus, then they could forgive you.
Context Context Context.
I don't know what being of "Protestant" faith means. I'm not being obtuse, I really don't know. I've never considered myself a protestant. But if the choices are Catholic or Protestant - I choose neither. I choose God and Jesus as my savior, his spirit as my Guide. My authority is the Church when God is leading them. The Bible the inspired work of God, good for teaching and reproof and that one day - "every knee will bow and every toungue confess, the Jesus Christ is Lord". I love that verse.
Seraphim.
In regards to Peter...
Matt.16:
13- When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14- They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15- "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16- Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17- Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18- And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19- I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Jesus gives Peter four Promises:
1- On this rock I will build my church,
2- The gates of Hades will not overcome it.
3- I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven
4- Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Jesus did not give the power to all of the Apostoles but to Peter.
don't know what being of "Protestant" faith means. I'm not being obtuse, I really don't know. I've never considered myself a protestant. But if the choices are Catholic or Protestant - I choose neither. I choose God and Jesus as my savior, his spirit as my Guide. My authority is the Church when God is leading them. The Bible the inspired work of God, good for teaching and reproof and that one day - "every knee will bow and every toungue confess, the Jesus Christ is Lord". I love that verse.
Sounds like a Protestant, dont mean to be rude, just attempting to see where you are coming from.
So your authority comes from the Bible only?
Karin - your passion is impressive to me. It really is.
The verse you quote - is again a very singular verse and I'm afraid this is going to become annoying to you. Not out of context, but out of misinterpretation. Petras and petros are the two greek words that are used in that verse. one to refer to peter and the other to refer the "Rock".
Christ did not make a mistake, since he's God and perfect. So we must interpret that God referred to peter as stone or pebble "Petras" and referred to himself or something else as Petros. All he would have had to do is say Petras twice and you would be exactly right, but since he didn't, your interpretation is in serious question.
karin,
Is being a protestant a bad thing?
LOL!
Seraphim,
Why be a Protestant when you can be so much more and avail yourself to so much more?
The one true church as per Jesus is the Catholic Church, anything else does not hold the full truth or splendor.
Just my 2cents by the way :)
So your bible does not translate Matt 16:18 the same way?
So Peter in your church is not the rock that Jesus built his Church? what does it say instead?
Christ made Peter the Rock that his Church is built on and the gates of hell will not prevail against it, as it has not for 2000 plus years :)
Karin,
The commentary I sent you covered that this language was written in Greek. And there is a variance in the meaning between Cephas (Peter) and Rock. If you don't examine the original text and language, I'm afraid you will always have a cultural and language bias when you read the Bible. If you'd rather cover your ears and believe what you want rather than examine truth, you're certainly free to do that. I'd encourage you to use a non-biased search method to find out the original greek in the scripture you gave to me. You'll find as I did that Christ used different Greek words. We must conclude that Christ meant what he said and words have meaning.
Do that, then we'll talk more.
Karin,
Something I've been meaning to ask a devout Catholic.
So am I not saved if I do not submit to the Catholic doctrine?
So am I not saved if I do not submit to the Catholic doctrine?
May I suggest this passage for you to read...
it should answer your question.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0403sbs.asp
And yes Christ did mean what he said, unfortunatly when we rely on Sola Scripture a problem arises in getting the full gist of what he meant :)
From the Cathecism of the Catholic Church:
CCC 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
CCC848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
Do that, then we'll talk more.
You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7-8 ("Peter"). It is translated as Petros ("Peter") in John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus' statement would have been, in English, "You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon this rock (kepa) I will build my church." The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple's new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances, they were also used interchangeably with the same meaning, "rock." Church: this word (Greek ekklesia) occurs in the gospels only here and in Matthew 18:17 (twice). There are several possibilities for an Aramaic original. Jesus' church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hades, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death.
This might be of some help also regarding the translations...
http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/infallib.PDF
Transliterated is not the same as translated. Transliterated mean, that the linguist made every attempt to translate it, but there was not an exact meaning for meaning, context for context word, so they did the best they could. That's the difference between, translated, and transliterated.
You're missing the forest for the trees. You're so convinced of what you believe that you're relieving yourself of simple logic, and some common sense.
The words were different. There's not dispute there. Someone's opining as to 'why' they are different are mindless tripe. You cannot be sure why they were different. Jesus is God. He chose different words for a purpose. Since I can't prove a negative, let's examine possible positive outcomes.
1. Peter was being spoken at, rather than to
2. Jesus was referring to himself
3. Jesus made a mistake
4. Jesus didn't realize the difference
5. Jesus said Rock, but meant peter
All of these except the first two negate the deity of Christ. Which one do you want to hang your hat on?
Before you respond, and I truthfully mean this; THINK about what I'm saying and WHY I would want to say it. You still didn't really answer my question about salvation.
I want to know FROM YOU - your answer to my question.
also - RE:
Do that, then we'll talk more.
You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters
cite your source.
RE: I want to know FROM YOU - your answer to my question."
I gave you my answer it is the same as the Catholic Churches :)
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
But in this day and age to not know about Jesus, his message, his teachings and his Church is a bit far fetched. Doncha' think?
Seraphim...let me ask you, what do you care what "I" or the "catholic church" think on this topic (salvation outside of the Church)?
Jesus said "and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
the gates of hell have not overcome it (CC) in over 2000 years :)
I will stick with what I know to be the truth, you by all means can stick with your tripe!
Karin, RE: Seraphim...let me ask you, what do you care what "I" or the "catholic church" think on this topic (salvation outside of the Church)?
Here's my interpretation, especially with the catholic church. With all the rules and interpretations, I perceive a certain level of assumed authority within the Catholic doctrine. One can only assume that if they are NOT part of the Catholic Church, then they are not part of the body of Christ, since the catholics believe that the Church that Christ refers to is the Catholic Church. Since I know doctrine well enough to know that if you're not part of the body of Christ, your eternally lost, I must conclude that YOU believe that only catholics are saved. With ignorance the minor exception.
So, I ask you again - put words to it and don't dodge the question. I reject that Catholic dogmatic approach to scripture, I reject the men who would convince you that they are God's authority on the Earth, I reject penance, I reject
the additional texts that men would throw at me as the "authoritative" word of God, beyond that of Jesus and his apostles or eyewitnesses to eyewitnesses.
I frankly believe that some catholics are saved, but most are not. I also believe that some christians are saved, but most who call themselves are not.
For many are called, but few are chosen
—Matthew 22:14, KJV
So I want to hear the words from you - if I don't submit to the Catholic Church, does that make me not a believer in your view - since I have heard the name of Jesus?
You asked why I 'care'. I care because if you believe as I've asked, that means that one of is wrong. See my post on Tolerance. If I'm wrong, I need to search that out. If you're wrong, I expect you'll want to do the same.
Karin, you re-iterated...Jesus said "and on this rock...
You didn't even evaluate my logic construct about the possibilities in that verse. Did you mean to overlook that? When these posts get long, I know it's easy to miss some things.
I look forward to your analysis.
Here's my interpretation, especially with the catholic church. With all the rules and interpretations, I perceive a certain level of assumed authority within the Catholic doctrine. One can only assume that if they are NOT part of the Catholic Church, then they are not part of the body of Christ, since the catholics believe that the Church that Christ refers to is the Catholic Church. Since I know doctrine well enough to know that if you're not part of the body of Christ, your eternally lost, I must conclude that YOU believe that only catholics are saved. With ignorance the minor exception.
Seraphim-
I see you did not "read" what I wrote but assumed something...you know what they say about assuming right?
This is what the Church says and I agree 100%....
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
I am sorry that you do not care for the Churches teachings but that is your issue not mine. It makes perfect sense!
So, I ask you again - put words to it and don't dodge the question. I reject that Catholic dogmatic approach to scripture, I reject the men who would convince you that they are God's authority on the Earth, I reject penance, I reject
the additional texts that men would throw at me as the "authoritative" word of God, beyond that of Jesus and his apostles or eyewitnesses to eyewitnesses.
I didnt dodge your question I actually answered it. Are you unable to comprehend what I wrote?
Look above in this post, I have restated my position and the Churches position in regards to your question.
I frankly believe that some catholics are saved, but most are not. I also believe that some christians are saved, but most who call themselves are not.
Totally agree!
You asked why I 'care'. I care because if you believe as I've asked, that means that one of is wrong. See my post on Tolerance. If I'm wrong, I need to search that out. If you're wrong, I expect you'll want to do the same
well since I know that I am not wrong :)
I guess you had better search that out.
Seraphim.
May I suggest that you actually read the CCC not bits and pieces of it. It actually makes total sense. It has converted many Protestants to the one true church the truth shines through and will prevail...remember the gates of hell have not prevailed in over 2000 years against the CC. Can you say that about your church? I think not!
remember the gates of hell have not prevailed in over 2000 years against the CC
define prevailed against...the catholic church has been riddled with corruption and fallibility all through out history. It is for the very nature of the Catholic Church that our American forefather's stipulated in a letter that there would be a separation of Church and State.
As to your other comments - I think you're pretty great. I like your spunk. It's good. Offers good debate. Keep in mind that I love my fellow sold-out followers of Christ. So, there's no feelings of contempt, hurt or judgment in me about any of our conversations.
But I'm going to remind you of why the Catholic Church might make perfect sense;
2 Timothy 4:3-4
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
In the end, I do not mean to offend a christian sister or brother. If they be of sound doctrine and a follower of Christ. While I do not call into question your relationship with Christ, you elevate the Church of Catholicism over him.
Point blank, theologically, the Catholic Church and the Bible do NOT agree. And that is a problem.
Here are some examples;
The obvious question is, what happens when these three "final authorities" disagree with each other? The Catechism gives this answer:
"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. This means that the task of interpretation has been entruste d to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome." (Pg. 27, #85)
It is important to note that when the Catechism explains that the task of interpreting the Word of God was entrusted to the "Church," it is referring exclusively to the Roman Catholic church. Such is the case throughout the Catechism. "The Church" always refers to the Roman Catholic church.
The Catechism repeats the same doctrine using different words:
"For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and m inistry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God." (Pg. 34, #119)
Therefore, the Catechism concludes that the one final authority is not the Bible, but the current teaching of the Catholic church, since she is the only one qualified to provide an "authentic in-terpretation" of God's Word.
and then ofcourse the disagreement.
"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119: 160
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6-7
The Bible boldly declares that it is the only final authority:
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." John 17:17
Seraphim,
I am sorry but you really do not have an understanding of what the Church teaches.
Your last post is so off base that it would take posts and posts to correct all of your false statements and assumptions.
While I do not call into question your relationship with Christ, you elevate the Church of Catholicism over him
Not at all. But by all means believe what you want seraphim. I see that this discussion is getting neither of us anywhere outside of showing each of us how wrong the other is.
The CC and the Bible do agree Seraphim.
I suggest once again, read the CCC and the Compendium you will see as have many other Protestants (who have come to the church) that it makes perfect sense, agrees with the bible and is filled with the truth.
I keep you in my prayers Seraphim.
God Bless!
showing each of us how wrong the other is.
I'm sorry it's evolved to that. These flat digital conversations lack much in the way of compassion and common language understanding.
No sense to continue to argue about neither of us agree is the basic premise.
i came across, quality content
the easiest way to create blog posts which smash in your visitors:
http://tinyurl.com/yl8mkyu
Post a Comment