Heck no (in my untutored opinion)!
Wise ones, check me on this, please. The problem is, once again, one of language AND one of time (and, I guess, place) and eternity. God is everywhere and everywhen; we aren't.
In our everyday experience, a delegate or deputy or minister plenipotentiary must operate in the absence of the one he represents. Because even the great ones among us are finite and of limited intelligence, they have to delegate power and authority to others.
Strictly speaking, though, the term "apostolic" when applied to the Church is of course metaphorical. It seems completely apt in this sense: If I had given you power of attorney and my bank account info (well, except that in my case it wouldn't do you any good -- Let's say Bill Gates had given you all that stuff.) In that case you're doing the spending, but it's Gates's money.
Here (to unwind the comparison a little) the priest is writing the check, but it's God's account. Since God agreed to be bound by the acts of his "apostles", and consequently we rightly trust those acts and take confidence that when the the bishop or priest says, "You are forgiven -- even of this sin which troubles or ought to trouble) you so greatly," it is really so.
( I also think there is great evangelical and pastoral wisdom in this. I can SAY ever so boldly, 'The Lord has put my sins away, I am washed in the blood of the Lamb, and my robes are made clean!" But if I cannot say even to one person who is bound under incredible strictures to keep my information so secure that he can never even hint at it again without my express permission, do I really believe it? I can SAY, "My harness is good, my carabiner is good, the rope is good, the belay point and knots are good," and still balk at backing over the edge of the precipice. Trusting in God's forgiveness is a virtue that takes grace -- and practice!)
But the metaphor is wrong in the sense that God is right here and right now -- ALL of God, not a piece of Him. So while it's just Fr. So-and-so whom I see listening and trying to suppress a yawn and wondering when he''ll get a potty break, it is God to whom I speak and God who forgives me.
I don't mean that to be so much persuasive as descriptive, and no doubt it's very wrong in some particulars.
1 Peter 3:18-21 : 18 For Christ died for sins once for all, ...
... As an aside, I note that the bolded part is 100% antithetical to Catholic teaching. ...
What the ... Heck no!
It's that "everywhere and everywhen" problem again and related to my absolutely brilliant and evocative ... and modest, don't forget that part ... essay earlier on on the Incarnation, on the womb, the manger, the stable which held something bigger than all Creation in them.
I think we just have to hurl ourselves over and over again against the problem of God and Time.
And also, just to make it completely incomprehensible, when it comes to the sufficiency of Christ's dolours and sacrifice, there's Colossians 1:24.
Catechism section 1440 is titled "Only God forgives sin."
Well, here is what I found right after that:
1441 Only God forgives sins.39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven."40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.41 (emphasis added)
This is the transfer I have been talking about, where it is the priest who is acting as opposed to God acting through the priest. "I absolve you" vs. "God absolves you". Anyway, that's all I was talking about. If it was the latter, I would still disagree with it theologically, but I would have much less objection to it, as if MY objection is worth a hill of beans. :)
And BTW, 1441 of this Catechism looks very familiar, so I'm sure someone has showed it to me before, although I didn't specifically remember it when I first wrote.
Here (to unwind the comparison a little) the priest is writing the check, but it's God's account. Since God agreed to be bound by the acts of his "apostles", and consequently we rightly trust those acts and take confidence that when the the bishop or priest says, "You are forgiven -- even of this sin which troubles or ought to trouble) you so greatly," it is really so.
Right, the "binding and loosening" clause. We just disagree on its interpretation. My side would say that (a) the clause only applied to the Apostles themselves (as in forgiving sins, and also raising the dead, healing, and everything else), and (b) that the authority actually transferred was only to "declare" what God Himself was doing. So perhaps we would say that God authorized the Apostles to deliver the check, but not to write it. :)
So while it's just Fr. So-and-so whom I see listening and trying to suppress a yawn and wondering when he''ll get a potty break, it is God to whom I speak and God who forgives me.
OK, well that sounds a lot better. Somebody needs to teach those Catechism authors how to write! :)
I think we just have to hurl ourselves over and over again against the problem of God and Time.
That's one way to look at it, but the words "once and for all" seem pretty specific and understandable. I remember arguing with someone over what "for" meant, but if we agree it is about time, then it looks pretty solid to me. :)
And also, just to make it completely incomprehensible, when it comes to the sufficiency of Christ's dolours and sacrifice, there's Colossians 1:24.
Here it is:
Col 1:24 : Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.
I don't understand what the issue is. When I read this to me it means that Paul has not yet suffered as much as Christ did.