Posted on 12/13/2015 3:12:46 PM PST by NYer
"Yep."
"Even the Confession thing?"
"Yeah. All the time."
One older lady gasped, "Well, I think that that would be the worst.
It would be so depressing; hearing all about people’s sins."
I think there are three things.
First, I see the costly mercy of God in action.
I get to regularly come face to face with the overwhelming, life-transforming power of God’s love.
I get to see God's love up-close and it reminds me of how good God is.
I see a saint in the making.
The second thing I see is a person who is still trying – a saint in the making.
I don't care if this is the person’s third confession this week; if they are seeking the Sacrament of Reconciliation, it means that they are trying.
That's all that I care about.
This thought is worth considering: going to Confession is a sign that you haven’t given up on Jesus.
1. He will not be disappointed! What your priest will see is a person who is trying! I dare you to find a saint who didn’t need to God’s mercy! (Even Mary needed God's mercy; she received the mercy of God in a dramatic and powerful way at her conception.
Boom. Lawyered.)
So often, people will ask if I remember people's sin from Confession.
As a priest, I rarely, if ever, remember sins from the confessional.
That might seem impossible, but the truth is, sins aren’t all that impressive.
They aren’t like memorable sunsets or meteor showers or super-intriguing movies… they are more like the garbage.
Honestly, once you realize that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is less about the sin and more about Christ's death and resurrection having victory in a person's life, the sins lose all of their luster, and Jesus' victory takes center stage.
In Confession, we meet the life transforming, costly love of God… freely given to us every time we ask for it. We meet Jesus who reminds us, "You are worth dying for .. even in your sins, you are worth dying for."
Whenever someone comes to Confession, I see a person who is deeply loved by God and who is telling God that they love Him back.
That's it, and that's all.
As long as one believes (thus the warnings against an evil heart of unbelief in departing from God, drawing back into perdition, making Christ of no effect, falling from grace, etc.), with Biblical faith, which effects obedience, including repentance when convicted of not walking in obedience. David immediately confessed and repented when convicted, though somehow he put his conscience on mute for a time before that.
Works of faith vindicate, justify one as being a believer, and fit to be rewarded, but it is the faith behind the works that is counted for righteousness appropriates the justification by which one is accepted in the Beloved, on account of the sinless Lord who bore our sins, and paid the price for our forgiveness with His sinless shed blood.
Man can claim no credit for believing and walking therein, since man could not and would not believe on the Lord Jesus or follow Him unless God gave him life, and breath, and all good things he has, (Acts 17:25) and convicted him, (Jn. 16:8) drew him, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) opened his heart, (Acts 16:14) and granted repentance (Acts 11:18) and gave faith, (Eph. 2:8,9) and then worked in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure the works He commands them to do. (Phil. 2:13; Eph. 2:10)
Thus man owes to God all things, and while he is guilty and rightly damned for resisting God contrary to the level of grace given him, (Prov. 1:20-31; Lk. 10:13; 12:48; Rv. 20:11-15)
Man can not claim he actually deserves anything but damnation, except that under grace — which denotes unmerited favor — God has chosen to reward faith, (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of its effects.
But Caths mistake the effect of faith as being the cause of justification and acceptance by God and spending eternity with Him, teaching salvation by grace thru works, that by the grace of God they actually become good enough to be with the perfect God.
They imagine souls are made good enough to be with God thru a ritual act itself (so that even baptism by a Prot is valid, if he basically intends to do what Rome does) of sprinkling with water, but as most do not die in that condition then they must go to a mythical place called Purgatory until they become good enough to be with God (and atone for sins).
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains that St. Augustine
"describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness" etc.
And thus by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they
"were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness". - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
Kreeft states,
"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." - Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224
As do lay RCs who say such things as,
"ones who will go directly to heaven are the ones who have already shed every last trace of self-love left in their hearts...Their hearts are left with nothing but pure love for Christ." -http://stillcatholic.com/CATHPurg.htm
RCs invoke James 2 who states that "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24), but if he is speaking of justification in same sense as Moses (Gn. 15:6) and Paul then he is contradicting them both. Instead, while Paul's protest is against salvation on the basis of merit of law-keeping, and preaches Abrahamic faith as salvific, James is protesting against an inert faith that does not work to fulfill the righteousness of the law by the Spirit, (cf. Rm. 8:4) and rightly teaches that only that kind of faith is salvific.
Aside from the absence of any distinct class of NT priests, that is not a good argument, as it does not exclude that they could refuse to forgive, while they could also counter that the penitent could be refused if he does not manifest the proper attitude.
Yet this relates to issue of proper intent, and which can open up a can of worms. See here by God's grace.
The need we all have to unburden ourselves from the shame of our sins is a common trait regardless of religious affiliation. As Christians, we are ALL ministers of the gospel of reconciliation through the grace of God.
To presume God’s grace and absolution of sins is reserved to only Catholics is wrong. Even if a person uses a Catholic priest to confess their sins - though we can go directly to God and he will forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness - that priest should not hold back “absolution”.
Sure looks like “according to Scripture” to me!
Ironic isn't it how those who complain constantly about how others misrepresent or lie about Catholic beliefs so often fall back on misrepresentations and lies about Evangelical beliefs?
I am "hardly" sorry...LOL! I recall confessing the same sin many times (taking a quarter from my Mom's purse) because I didn't think I was really forgiven even though I was ashamed and sorry and scared i was going to hell. No one told me I should have gone to Mom and told her what I did.
I’ve read that the practice of auricular (oral) confession to a priest was something that developed over many centuries and was not a practice of the early Christian churches.
Very.
And not unnoticed by many of us.
Over time, the forms in which the sacrament has been administered have changed. In the early Church, publicly known sins (such as apostasy) were often confessed openly in church, though private confession to a priest was always an option for privately committed sins. Still, confession was not just something done in silence to God alone, but something done "in church," as theDidache (A.D. 70) indicates.
This is affirmed by Hippolytus.
"[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command" (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).
And
"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]). - The Didache
And
"[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine ,after the manner of him who say, 'I said, "To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity"'" (Homilies in Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]). - Origen
A trifecta with Didache, Origen, and Hippolytus. well quoted and on point.
Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery) was tied to a very rigorous discipline, according to which penitents had to do public penance for their sins, often for years, before receiving reconciliation. To this ‘order of penitents’ (which concerned only certain grave sins), one was only rarely admitted and in certain regions only once in a lifetime. During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the ‘private’ practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. It allowed the forgiveness of grave sins and venial sins to be integrated into one sacramental celebration. In its main lines this is the form of penance that the Church has practiced down to our day†(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1447).
Fear and doubt is the opposite of confident assurance.
I am happy that I have the latter- all because of my Lord Jesus Christ.
If it was MY work then, believe me, I would be justifiably afraid. To a degree, I know my heart and the depth of my sin. I am unworthy - EXCEPT for Christ (who is my life. )
The didache is so filled with false teachings. I certainly wouldn’t lean on it at all.
And this is from the “church” that claims it never changes!
I disagree that the Didache is full of false teachings. See this translation and analysis:
http://www.bswett.com/1998-01Didache.html
It concludes: “The long title of the Didache in the manuscript dated 1056 reads: “The Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles” but I believe the original title was “The Teaching of the Apostles to the Gentiles” and the rest was inserted later.”
“Certainly Barnabas and Paul were “The Apostles to the Gentiles.” If the Didache is a sample of their teaching, as it certainly seems to be, then it must be dated no later than AD 49 because that was when they went their separate ways. The most probable date is either AD 44 or AD 47. In either case, those dates are earlier than anything in the New Testament. Therefore, I believe the Didache is the earliest Christian document we have. Although rightly regarded as a church handbook and not a Gospel or absolutely based on the teachings of Jesus, it provides valuable insights concerning the moral doctrines, theology, rituals, esoteric operations and congregational testing of apostles and prophets, and the basic organization of First Century Christianity.”
I hope you do read it, even with your belief of ‘false teachings.’
7:2 But if you have no running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, then in warm.
The temperature of the water means nothing! John baptized in a river!
7:4 Before the baptism, both the baptizer and the candidate for baptism, plus any others who can, should fast. The candidate should fast for one or two days beforehand.
Peter did not require this of Cornelius. Acts 10:43-48
8:1 Your fasts should not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays. You should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.
There is no injunction on the days to fast in the NT.
11:4 Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord.
11:5 But he must not remain more than one day, or two, if there's a need. If he stays three days, he is a false prophet.
Then Paul broke this one wide open during his travels. He stayed in Corinth for 18 months! Acts 18:11
11:12 But whoever says in the Spirit, "Give me money,"or something else like this, you must not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for the sake of others who are in need, let no one judge him.
Paul told the Galatians otherwise in Gal 6:6.
http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html
I'm not sure where he gets his dates but other scholars disagree.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
The Didache - The Complete Text
Catholic Word of the Day: DIDACHE (Teaching of the twelve Apostles), 03-20-14
Excerpt from: The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
What the early Church had to say about abortion
Church History: The Didache [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
Catholic Word of the Week: DIDACHE (Teaching of the twelve Apostles), 05-18-10
Early Christians and Abortion
The Time Capsule
The Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles
The Didache - The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations
Of what import is a trifecta of errors, supporting NT presbuteros, whose primary functions was prayer and feeding the flock the word of God via preaching, being distinctively titled priests - unseen in the NT church (Acts onward, and interpretive of the gospels) - officiating at the Lord's supper - unseen in the NT church - engaging in turning bread and wine into "real flesh" to be offered as a sacrifice for sin and to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life - unseen in all revelation of the NT church.
Reliance upon the uninspired writings of post apostolic men, and the subjection of Scripture to a 3rd class status (as what Rome says is supreme for RCs, with tradition trumping Scripture as needed) ensures the perpetuation of errors of tradition, and their further accretion.
The distinctive sacerdotal priesthood of Catholicism is just one example of the many aspects which are invisible and contrary to the NT church in Scripture.
He laid out “where he gets is dates” in the section “Historical Context.” I am posting it so that you can re-read it.
Many strong parallels point to Paul and Barnabas as the apostles involved in this teaching. If so, what we know about them from other sources brackets the time and place in which the Didache was written.
The followers of Jesus first preached the gospel only to Jews. After several years, some of them started preaching to Gentiles in Antioch of Syria, many of whom were converted. When the leaders of the church in Jerusalem heard about this, they sent Barnabas to Antioch. He found a sizable congregation and many more people eager to hear about Jesus. So Barnabas went to Tarsus and brought Paul to Antioch. They taught there together for a year. (Acts 11:19-26)
Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world, and this took place in the days of Claudius. And the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brethren who lived in Judea; and they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Paul. (Acts 11:27-30)
Historical sources say there was a great famine in Judea in AD 47. Therefore, Acts 12:1-23 may be misplaced in Luke’s otherwise chronological report. “About that time” King Herod killed James the brother of John and arrested Peter; but Peter escaped from prison, and King Herod died at Caesarea. There are historical records that King Herod (Agrippa I) died during a festival at Caesarea in AD 44. Luke adds a time-space: “But the word of God grew and multiplied” (Acts 12:24).
In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul wrote:
Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. (Galatians 2:1-2)
Fourteen years after Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem probably equates to AD 47. The Didache may be what Paul laid before the leaders in Jerusalem — a summary document prepared in advance for just that purpose — or more likely from the way it sounds, a set of lecture notes taken while Barnabas and Paul and Titus were speaking. In either case it is worth noting that in the Didache and in Acts 15:12 Barnabas speaks first. He was the leader at Antioch. Paul was his assistant.
when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Peter and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (Galatians 2:9)
This was when Barnabas and Paul received their charter as “The Apostles to the Gentiles.” They returned from Jerusalem to Antioch, bringing Mark with them. (Acts 12:25) Shortly thereafter, all three of them set out on Paul’s first missionary journey, which scholars date in AD 47. (Acts 13:1-4)
They went from Antioch to and through the island of Cyprus, and then north to what is now the southern coast of Turkey. There Mark left them and went back to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas went on establishing new churches in the Roman province of Galatia. They returned to the coast by the way they came, sailed back to Antioch of Syria, and “remained no little time with the disciples.” (Acts 13 - 14)
But some men came down from Jerusalem [to Antioch] and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1)
Paul’s letter to the Galatians was probably written at this time. No doubt, men from Jerusalem also told his converts in Galatia that they had to be circumcised. Paul was angry because the leaders in Jerusalem had broken their agreement by sending men to the Gentiles. Thus, his letter to the Galatians was written in late AD 48 or early AD 49.
Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go [from Antioch] up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. (Acts 15:2b)
Scholars date the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem in AD 49. The controversy was not between Paul and Peter. After all, Peter was the one who first preached the gospel to Gentiles (Acts 11:1-3). It was between Paul and “the circumcision party” led by James of Jerusalem, the brother of Jesus (Galatians 2:12).
Peter spoke first, in favor of preaching the gospel to Gentiles. Then Barnabas and Paul presented their case. Finally, James of Jerusalem yielded. The decision was that Gentiles did not have to become Jews in order to be Christians, but they must: “Abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.” (Acts 15:6-21, 29) The first part of this decision is in the Didache (6:3); the other three provisions apparently were added to it by the “apostles and elders” in Jerusalem.
With their charter thus reaffirmed, Paul and Barnabas were ready to carry the decision of the Apostolic Council back to the churches they established. Barnabas wanted to take Mark with them again, but Paul objected because Mark left them during their previous journey. Paul and Barnabas quarreled. Finally, Barnabas took Mark with him and went back to Cyprus (Acts 15:36-39).
This is the last we hear of Barnabas in the New Testament, except for an indication that he was still preaching the gospel several years later (I Corinthians 9:6).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.