Author Topic: Why do Protestants object to Confessing sins to a priest? (Read 14411 times)

Elvisman · « **Reply #70 on:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 - 14:51:43 »

Quote from: Josiah on Fri Oct 14, 2011 - 16:06:49

Who is the "us?"

The "Us" in Acts 15:24 is the Apostles. The council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 CLEARLY shows that THEY were the leaders of the Church. That's why Paul had to go there to get the final decision about the Judaizers.

They were the Episcopoi - yes, BISHOPS of the Church.

Norton · « **Reply #71 on:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 - 17:56:01 »

Quote from: Elvisman on Thu Oct 13, 2011 - 11:50:48

Quote from: Josiah on Thu Oct 13, 2011 - 09:37:51
Jesus never mentioned POWER. That's an RC Denomination obsession. Read Matthew 20:20-28.

Ummmm . . . Matt. 20:20-28 has NOTHING to do with this conversation because Jesus isn't singling out any individual Apostle here. He is telling them that they should not seek to be greater than one another.

As for Jesus never mentioning POWER - you have once again shown your ignorance of the Scriptures:

Matt. 28:18-20
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All POWER in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.

HRoberson · « **Reply #72 on:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 - 20:56:42 »

Quote from: Elvisman on Fri Oct 14, 2011 - 09:11:00

Quote from: HRoberson on Thu Oct 13, 2011 - 23:16:38
I don't really want to make this a drawn out debate. Let's just say I have read the writings of the early church and Jude. What I don't see is a priest being required in the churches that Titus and Timothy were to set up. What I do see is elders required and then the development of a priest class over time (through the writings of the early church). Which means (to me) that the churches of Tim and Titus didn't need priests to hear confession (assuming those churches confessed).

Fair enough.

What, then, do you do with Paul's own words on the subject?
2 Cor. 5:18-20
“And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given US the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through US. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

I'm not sure that all those plurals are speaking exclusively of the apostles, as opposed to the church at large. There is that small saying at the end of Matthew that most people take as a directive to the church rather than a limited number of people.

Josiah · « **Reply #73 on:** Tue Oct 18, 2011 - 09:30:25 »

Quote from: Elvisman on Fri Oct 14, 2011 - 09:11:00

Quote from: HRoberson on Thu Oct 13, 2011 - 23:16:38
I don't really want to make this a drawn out debate. Let's just say I have read the writings of the early church and Jude. What I don't see is a priest being required in the churches that Titus and Timothy were to set up. What I do see is elders required and then the development of a priest class over time (through the writings of the early church). Which means (to me) that the churches of Tim and Titus didn't need priests to hear confession (assuming those churches confessed).

Fair enough.

What, then, do you do with Paul's own words on the subject?
2 Cor. 5:18-20
“And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given US the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through US. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

highrigger · « **Reply #74 on:** Sun Oct 23, 2011 - 21:36:46 »

Quote

I think it is correct to link Matt 28:18-20 and John 20:21-23. Jesus received all power and authority and then/therefore gave the apostles the authority to preach the gospel and pronouce the sins forgiven of those who believed, by baptizing them. We must assume that this authority was given to others besides the 12 apostles or we are all in trouble. The question is: Was this authority given to only the designated successors of the apostles, if there are any designated successors, or to all Christians?

Norton,

As no one knows of any successors to those disciples it must be to all Christians. It simply means we all have the authority to preach the forgiveness of God.

I have no objection to anyone going to a priest to confess their sins. We are taught to confess in our church and protestants do that also. My objection is the claim that ONLY a priest will do and we cannot go direct to God. That view is against scripture.
Peace, JohnR

Norton · « **Reply #75 on:** Sat Oct 29, 2011 - 14:13:17 »

I agree. All who put their faith in Christ are successors to the apostles. We are told to confess our sins one to another. And John tells us to pray for one who has commited sin. In neither case is it taught that laity confess to clergy or that only the clergy can pray for the laity who have commited sins.

p.rehbein · « **Reply #76 on:** Wed Dec 28, 2011 - 07:19:15 »

All of this has been an interesting read, but, shoot, there is a simple answer to the question title of the thread ya know.....

We don't have Priests.................so what would be the purpose of our confessing sins to them?

Now, if you are asking, why do Protestants object to Catholics confessing sins to a Priest, OK! In that case, go ahead with your discussion..............

asachild · « **Reply #77 on:** Mon Jan 16, 2012 - 05:02:09 »

Quote

Then I suggest you read not only the writings of the Early Church but the Epistle of Jude as well, which deals with the ministerial priesthood and those who tried to usurp it's authority. In the letter, he even refers to the Rebellion of Korah in the OT and the consequences for what they did.

* Godless men who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality

* deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

* the dreamers pollute their own bodies in a way similar to Sodom and Gomorrah in sexual immorality and perversion.

* these dreamers reject authority and slander celestial beings.

* these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand compared to the archangel Michael saying 'the Lord rebuke you' in a dispute with Satan over Moses' body.

* they have taken the way of Cain

* rushed for profit into Balaam's error

* destroyed in Korah's rebellion

* Shepherds who feed only themselves

There's more, but I think it's clear that there's more to this than rebellion against an alleged ministerial priesthood.

Regards,
AsAChild

asachild · « **Reply #78 on:** Mon Jan 16, 2012 - 05:28:13 »

Quote

JUDAS was replaced, it says NOTHING about anything being re-gifted.
What about James, Peter, Paul - where are the Scriptures about them being "replaced?" About this sole ability to forgive being re-gifted to whomever "replaced" them?

It's probably my own quirk, but I have always looked at the election of Matthias as another Peter impetuosity.

It seemed to me that Saul/Paul was already in the queue as the 12th. Jesus had told them to *wait* for the Holy Spirit, and this casting of lots occurred before the Holy Spirit's arrival.

Compare the descriptions in Act 1:15

"In those days Peter stood up among the believers <...> and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled... Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us."

and then in Acts 13:2 "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the *Holy Spirit* said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul...."

Jesus was not bound within and limited to a box of "from John's baptism" to His being "taken up from us." Hence we have Saul on the road to Damascus having a close-up encounter with the risen Lord. Paul was called directly by the Lord Jesus - no apostolic succession from the original apostles, no rules of 'one of the men who have been with us since...'

Regards,
AsAChild

highrigger · « **Reply #79 on:** Tue May 01, 2012 - 14:48:17 »

Quote

Jesus was not bound within and limited to a box of "from John's baptism" to His being "taken up from us." Hence we have Saul on the road to Damascus having a close-up encounter with the risen Lord. Paul was called directly by the Lord Jesus - no apostolic succession from the original apostles, no rules of 'one of the men who have been with us since...'

asachild,

The Mattias selection had nothing to do with apostolic succession anyway. Neither did laying of hands have anything to do with ordination. That theory is just made up and not the case at all. Laying of hands was a blessing used for many things, but never for ordination. Here is Raymond Brown to explain.

"1. Antioch church sends Barnabas and Saul; Mission to Cyprus and SE Asia monor (Acts 13;1-14:28)

In this context of prayer and fasting, hands are laid on Barnabas and Saul. We should not
anachronistically speak of this as an ordination; it is a commissioning by the church of Antioc
for a mission that is often counted as the first Pauline journey and dated to AD 46-49."
Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, P 303, Imprimatur.

I get tired of the assertion that thee were priests or some kind of clergy in the NT. There was none.

Peace, JohnR

p.rehbein · « **Reply #80 on:** Tue May 29, 2012 - 19:32:48 »

well, we can commit a sin against God........and we can commit a sin against man............

......if I commit a sin against God, I confess that sin to my Intercessor, my Saviour and Lord, and He represents me in front of God for that sin to be pardoned...........covered by His blood............

.......if I commit a sin against man (a fellow believer, or other), then I confess that sin to them and ask their forgiveness.........

This is how I do it, now you are free to do as you wish.........and God bless ya, but I don't need a Priest to confess my sins to..........just saying...........

(my thoughts only............)

FireSword · « **Reply #81 on:** Tue Jun 26, 2012 - 14:45:26 »

Quote from: Elvisman on Sat Oct 01, 2011 - 10:35:37

Quote from: Ladonia on Sat Oct 01, 2011 - 01:15:03
Quote from: kensington on Fri Sep 30, 2011 - 20:25:21
Also, by the very verse you quoted for this topic, what is the priest for? It said forgive the sins of one another, it didn't say go to a priest and be granted forgiveness from him.

The verse was an admonishment to the body of Christ on forgiving one another, not an instruction to continue an Old Testament practice that was no longer needed once Jesus the High Priest came.

But, I do have a question. Your posts seem to be posed in the form of a questions as a gateway for you to judge and insult the protestants. How is that productive to the edification and building of the church?

Elvisman, is this true?
NO. Kensington is wrong. Here's why:
The generally accepted rule of hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) is that when Jesus spoke to the crowds, he spoke to ALL of us. When Jesus instructed the Twelve, it was to the leaders of the Church.

The practice of telling our sins directly to a priest is based directly in Scripture. THREE times in the Gospels (Matt. 16:19, 18:18 and John 20:23), we read where Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins or to hold them bound. This is not a something that Jesus took lightly. In John 20:21-23, Jesus (who is God) breathes on the Apostles as he is giving them this power:
"(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU retain are retained."

The fact that Jesus breathed on the Apostles when entrusted them with this ministry is highly significant because he doesn’t do this anywhere else in the New Testament. In fact, there are only two times in ALL of Scripture where God breathes on man:
The first is when he breathed life into Adam. The second is here in John’s Gospel when he is giving them the power to forgive or retain sins.

You forgot about when Jesus breathed upon them and said receive ye the holy ghost.

highrigger · « **Reply #82 on:** Tue Jul 24, 2012 - 11:19:48 »

Quote

Why do Protestants object to Confessing sins to the Church when Jesus emphatically declared this to be true?

elvisman,

Your scripture never says there should be priests to forgive the sins of others. In fact Jesus shows we should pray and repent directly to God in the Lords Prayer and in the parable of the tax collector and the pharisee. (Luke 18:9)

In fact just because such scripture is shown in your CCC does not mean the apostle had CCC intent when he wrote that scripture. Here is Fr Raymond Brown to explain.

"In terms of what we might call the literal sense of Scripture, ie, what a verse
meant when it was first written, it is doubtful that the Roman Catholic Church has ever defined the meaning of any passage. The church has defined that some ot its doctrines are related to scriptural passages, but not necessarily that those doctrines were in the minds of the poeple who wrote the passages. Thus, a conflict between private interpretation and church doctrine based on scripture is really not relevant to the type of commentary help That I have been describing.
I remember with sad amusement the observation made by a reviewer in a popular evaluation of a long commentary I had done. He stated he was grateful that he did
not have to bother with my opinions or those of others since he preached only what the Catholic Church taught about this particular book. Since the church had never interpreted the literal meaning of any passage in that book, I wondered exactly what he found to preach. What he really meant, I am sure, is that he preached the opinions about the book that he had been taught when he was in the seminary, and he did not want to botherseeing whether those opinions still represented where most scholars stood today."
Raymond Brown, Q15 - 101 Questions and Answers to the Bible. Page 25. Imprimatur

You should not use the verses shown in your CCC to support the CCC. They are not intended to do so and of course provide no support anyway as known by bible experts.

Peace, JohnR

Hartofgold8679 · « **Reply #83 on:** Tue Jul 24, 2012 - 12:33:31 »

Quote from: Elvisman on Fri Sep 30, 2011 - 12:47:22

Why do Protestants object to Confessing sins to the Church when Jesus emphatically declared this to be true?

In John 20:21-23, Jesus told the Apostles:
“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

Hi Elvisman, I have a question that may or may not pertain to this thread but you seem to have knowledge on the topic of forgivness of sins where the Catholic faith is concerned. Is there a difference in forgiviness of sins before Jesus died and rose again versus after? My question has to do with Hebrews 10, especialy 10;10-18. As I understand that there is no longer any need to ask forgiveness, once we have been saved , because Jesus has already taken care of that for us past present and future(heb 10;10,12) That we as beleivers should not have a conscience of sin(Heb 10;2)and that God no longer remebers our sin (Heb 10;16,17) His blood covers our sins for life so why are we asking anyone for forgivness, unless you are not saved then you must confess your sins and He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins(1John 1;9) I do understand what you say about the apostles, and someone posted about the Lords prayer, which states forgive us as we forgive those, I don't see that as apilicable now becasue Jesus has defeated all sin for all time. I may be simple or wrong but thats why I ask. I see nothing wrong with going to a preist to confess sins but based on what I have read, right or wrong, the giving of forgivness has already been done by Jesus.

Truly and Humbly Yours.
Anastasia

highrigger · « **Reply #84 on:** Sat Aug 25, 2012 - 15:22:25 »

Quote

The fact that Jesus breathed on the Apostles when entrusted them with this
ministry is highly significant because he doesn’t do this
anywhere else in the New Testament. In fact, there are only two times
in ALL of Scripture where God breathes on
man:
The first is when he breathed life into
Adam. The second is here in John’s Gospel when he is giving
them the power to forgive or retain sins.

Quote

I am Catholic through and through. Already believe what you said. But you
misread by question. I meant you to answer question this posed by our brother:
"Your posts seem to be posed in the form of a questions as a gateway for you to
judge and insult the Protestants"?

Ladonia,

We dont take it as such. We all know how elvisman is. The funny thing is he spouts things simply false. Jesus is not stated to have breathed on anyone. Where did he get that from? This is comical.
But I will answer the basic question here. The reason we pray direct to the face of God is because Jesus taught us to do exactly that. It is in the Lords Prayer and anyone who studies the bible can see that.
Another example of Jesus teaching how to pray is his parable of the tax collector and the pharisee who asked Gods forgiveness and walked away from the temple justified.
In fact Jesus no where directs us to pray to anyone but God.
Why dont you pray the way Jesus taught? That is the real question.
What moved you to change from his direct teaching in the NT?
Peace, JohnR

AnnaM · « **Reply #85 on:** Sun Aug 11, 2013 - 17:45:11 »

Quote from: Elvisman on Fri Sep 30, 2011 - 12:47:22

Why do Protestants object to Confessing sins to the Church when Jesus emphatically declared this to be true?

In John 20:21-23, Jesus told the Apostles:
“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

I believe it is because they lack humility.

DaveW · « **Reply #86 on:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 05:24:14 »

Quote from: highrigger on Sat Aug 25, 2012 - 15:22:25

We dont take it as such. We all know how elvisman is. The funny thing is he spouts things simply false. Jesus is not stated to have breathed on anyone. Where did he get that from? This is comical.

Um - what does it say here?

John 20.21 (NASB) So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”
22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

DaveW · « **Reply #87 on:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 05:29:31 »

Quote from: AnnaM on Sun Aug 11, 2013 - 17:45:11

Quote from: Elvisman on Fri Sep 30, 2011 - 12:47:22
Why do Protestants object to Confessing sins to the Church when Jesus emphatically declared this to be true?

In John 20:21-23, Jesus told the Apostles:
“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
I believe it is because they lack humility.

Not necessarily.

The idea of confessing sin to a person just looks too "catholic" to most protestants. Just like using matzah for communion is too Jewish. When you are brought up believing that Catholicism and Judaism are false religions, one tries to avoid anything that looks like them.

I would chalk both up to reactions from ignorance rather than pride.

AVZ · « **Reply #88 on:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 05:48:34 »

Quote from: DaveW on Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 05:29:31

Quote from: AnnaM on Sun Aug 11, 2013 - 17:45:11
Quote from: Elvisman on Fri Sep 30, 2011 - 12:47:22
Why do Protestants object to Confessing sins to the Church when Jesus emphatically declared this to be true?

In John 20:21-23, Jesus told the Apostles:
“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
I believe it is because they lack humility.
Not necessarily.

The idea of confessing sin to a person just looks too "catholic" to most protestants. Just like using matzah for communion is too Jewish. When you are brought up believing that Catholicism and Judaism are false religions, one tries to avoid anything that looks like them.

I would chalk both up to reactions from ignorance rather than pride.

I think Protestants have a problem with the idea of someone else but God forgiving their sins, or such a person giving them some kind of punishment such as "pray 12x this" or "do that".
It is not so much the confession part, but the forgiving part that they object to.

DaveW · « **Reply #89 on:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 06:34:55 »

That well could be. But there is definite scriptural support for men granting forgiveness.

John 20.23 If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

AVZ · « **Reply #90 on:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 07:04:34 »

Quote from: DaveW on Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 06:34:55

That well could be. But there is definite scriptural support for men granting forgiveness.

John 20.23 If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

True. But that was said to the Apostles. And as we know Protestants don't really swallow the claim of apostolic succession.
Fine tuning my statement above I would say that Protestants think that one man having some kind of authority to forgive, looks too much like one man acting on behalf of God.
As if God is no longer required in the process of forgiveness.

While thinking of this I do realize that confession in the Catholic Church also not really is what it is supposed to be in James 5:16

DaveW · « **Reply #91 on:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 07:27:31 »

Apostolic succession is not even a blip on most protestants' radar screens.

Most of those statements are taken to apply to ALL church leaders or even all believers. This is no different.

Whatever it looks like - no self respecting sola scriptura person can ignore that verse. You have to do something with it.

AVZ · « **Reply #92 on:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 07:42:17 »

Quote from: DaveW on Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 07:27:31

Apostolic succession is not even a blip on most protestants' radar screens.

Most of those statements are taken to apply to ALL church leaders or even all believers. This is no different.

Whatever it looks like - no self respecting sola scriptura person can ignore that verse. You have to do something with it.

I agree. But I would like to stay within the frameset of the original question, which, looks to me a Catholic issue.
And the issue here is why Protestants would object to confession exclusively to a priest (in the Catholic sense of going for confession).

I think Protestants, if they confess to one another, they don't see that such a thing necessarily needs involvement of a priest, or even as a regular event.
In any case, James 5:16 seems to say that when you confess your sins to one another, all should pray.

The Catholic response to confession is not prayer, but a statement of forgiveness with or without a form of penance.
Now I am not saying that one is right and the other is not, but I can see that James 5:16 does not limit itself to a confessional and a priest.

To me the idea of regular confession to a priest or pastor seems very intelligible. I would be quite in favor of this to be honest.
But I also wonder if confession in a secret shady and anonymous closet really reflects the idea of James 5:16

DaveW · « **Reply #93 on:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 08:44:49 »

To me it is one of several possible acceptable implementatins of James 5:16. It is certainly not the only one or even the best one. But it is a SAFE one from a certain human viewpoint.

The "sanctity" of the confessional has similar safeguards to attorney-client privedge and doctor-patient confidentiality. That is to keep tattlers and busybodies from spreading gossip over what was confessed. Presumably that makes one feel safe enough to actually confess sins. Whether extending it to that degree is healthy or not is debatable.

"Confess" means to "say with;" meaning agreement. Scripture says xyz is a sin and I did xyz and confess (say with the scripture) that it is a sin. That is SUPPOSED to also mean repentance (turning away from that sin) but often that aspect of confession is not stressed and gets lost/overlooked.

As to pronouncing forgiveness; it requires the person on the pronouncing side (the one being confessed to) to be familiar with the leading of the Holy Spirit enough to sense from Him if this confesser is being honest and complete and is truly repentant. That is something only God can know. So then it is the place of the one being confessed to to pronounce forgiveness (in the case of true repentance) or no forgiveness (no repentance). In that he is agreeing and confessing (saying with) the scriptures that one is forgiven. It leaves the actual forgiveness in God's hands but leaves the communication of that fact to us.

FireSword · « **Reply #94 on:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 11:20:45 »

Quote from: DaveW on Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 05:29:31

Quote from: AnnaM on Sun Aug 11, 2013 - 17:45:11
Quote from: Elvisman on Fri Sep 30, 2011 - 12:47:22
Why do Protestants object to Confessing sins to the Church when Jesus emphatically declared this to be true?

In John 20:21-23, Jesus told the Apostles:
“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
I believe it is because they lack humility.
Not necessarily.

The idea of confessing sin to a person just looks too "catholic" to most protestants. Just like using matzah for communion is too Jewish. When you are brought up believing that Catholicism and Judaism are false religions, one tries to avoid anything that looks like them.

I would chalk both up to reactions from ignorance rather than pride.

It's also a matter of trust. Catholic priests are sworn to secrecy even if those secrets revealed could convict criminals.
Protestants pastors are not under such convictions.

AVZ · « **Reply #95 on:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 11:55:20 »

Quote from: FireSword on Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 11:20:45

Quote from: DaveW on Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 05:29:31
Quote from: AnnaM on Sun Aug 11, 2013 - 17:45:11
Quote from: Elvisman on Fri Sep 30, 2011 - 12:47:22
Why do Protestants object to Confessing sins to the Church when Jesus emphatically declared this to be true?

In John 20:21-23, Jesus told the Apostles:
“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
I believe it is because they lack humility.

Not necessarily.

The idea of confessing sin to a person just looks too "catholic" to most protestants. Just like using matzah for communion is too Jewish. When you are brought up believing that Catholicism and Judaism are false religions, one tries to avoid anything that looks like them.

I would chalk both up to reactions from ignorance rather than pride.

It's also a matter of trust. Catholic priests are sworn to secrecy even if those secrets revealed could convict criminals.
Protestants pastors are not under such convictions.

Hmmm...this may actually vary per state or per country.
http://blog.managingyourchurch.com/2012/04/is_a_confession_to_a_pastor_al.html

Reading up on a few stories online, I would say that there are also instances that confession really raises some ethical issues.
For example the next story where a priest knew that an innocent person was jailed.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130794&page=1

The question that arises is: what is more ethical. Breaking confidentiality, or letting an innocent man go to jail.
Difficult dilemma if you ask me.

And there are more stories online.
Actually, depending on which side of the argument for/against ethic behavior you choose, you could come up with some very strong arguments for/against confidentiality.

FireSword · « **Reply #96 on:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 12:09:44 »

John of Nepomuk (or John Nepomucene) (Czech: Jan Nepomucký) (c. 1345 – March 20, 1393)[1] is a national saint of the Czech Republic, who was drowned in the Vltava river at the behest of Wenceslaus, King of the Romans and King of Bohemia. Later accounts state that he was the confessor of the queen of Bohemia and refused to divulge the secrets of the confessional. On the basis of this account, John of Nepomuk is considered the first martyr of the Seal of the Confessional, a patron against calumnies and, because of the manner of his death, a protector from floods.[1]

wiki

chosenone · « **Reply #97 on:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 12:55:05 »

Quote from: FireSword on Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 11:20:45

Quote from: DaveW on Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 05:29:31
Quote from: AnnaM on Sun Aug 11, 2013 - 17:45:11
Quote from: Elvisman on Fri Sep 30, 2011 - 12:47:22
Why do Protestants object to Confessing sins to the Church when Jesus emphatically declared this to be true?

In John 20:21-23, Jesus told the Apostles:
“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
I believe it is because they lack humility.
Not necessarily.

The idea of confessing sin to a person just looks too "catholic" to most protestants. Just like using matzah for communion is too Jewish. When you are brought up believing that Catholicism and Judaism are false religions, one tries to avoid anything that looks like them.

I would chalk both up to reactions from ignorance rather than pride.

It's also a matter of trust. Catholic priests are sworn to secrecy even if those secrets revealed could convict criminals.
Protestants pastors are not under such convictions.

No one should be able to keep serious things such as murder, rape, child abuse etc a secret and not report it to the police, especially if more people are in danger of suffering at the hands of this person. I wonder how may RC priests confessed their child abuse sins to another priest, and then carried on abusing.

FireSword · « **Reply #98 on:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 13:21:15 »

Quote

No one should be able to keep serious things such as murder, rape, child abuse etc a secret and not report it to the police, especially if more people are in danger of suffering at the hands of this person. I wonder how may RC priests confessed their child abuse sins to another priest, and then carried on abusing.

If they continue doing evil the scriptures say for the church to deal with the problem.

HRoberson · « **Reply #99 on:** Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 19:51:52 »

Quote from: FireSword on Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 11:20:45

Quote from: DaveW on Mon Aug 12, 2013 - 05:29:31
Quote from: AnnaM on Sun Aug 11, 2013 - 17:45:11
Quote from: Elvisman on Fri Sep 30, 2011 - 12:47:22
Why do Protestants object to Confessing sins to the Church when Jesus emphatically declared this to be true?

In John 20:21-23, Jesus told the Apostles:
“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
I believe it is because they lack humility.
Not necessarily.

The idea of confessing sin to a person just looks too "catholic" to most protestants. Just like using matzah for communion is too Jewish. When you are brought up believing that Catholicism and Judaism are false religions, one tries to avoid anything that looks like them.

I would chalk both up to reactions from ignorance rather than pride.

It's also a matter of trust. Catholic priests are sworn to secrecy even if those secrets revealed could convict criminals.
Protestants pastors are not under such convictions.

But they enjoy the privelege.

Reverend M · « **Reply #100 on:** Sun Nov 10, 2013 - 02:18:07 »

Quote from: Paulus on Sat Oct 01, 2011 - 05:10:33

Quote from: Ladonia on Sat Oct 01, 2011 - 01:10:36
Quote from: Paulus on Fri Sep 30, 2011 - 13:35:25
Quote from: Elvisman on Fri Sep 30, 2011 - 12:47:22
Why do Protestants object to Confessing sins to the Church when Jesus emphatically declared this to be true?

Many don't .

There is an Anglican church at top of my street where the parishioners confess their sins to the priest .

It is normal practice in many Anglican parishes , though they are in the minority nationwide .

Well, that is interesting, I did not know that. I had always heard that us and the Anglicans were the same in many respects, but the confession to a priest aspect I did not know.

Yes , Ladonia , it's common among those Anglicans who term themselves Anglo-Catholic , many of whom use the Roman Missal , and even include "Benedict our Pope" in the Eucharistic Prayer .

This is simply factually incorrect, self described "Anglo-Catholics" will be using one of the many Anglican prayer books in existence, the 1662 BCP or one of it's variants. They don't need to use the Roman Missal, the Anglican church doesn't even have the same liturgical calendar that Rome has.

And they do not include the Pope in any Eucharistic prayer that I am aware of.

Carry on.

Christian Forums News:

Author Topic: Why do Protestants object to Confessing sins to a priest? (Read 14411 times)

Elvisman

HRoberson

p.rehbein

p.rehbein

AVZ

AVZ

AVZ

AVZ

HRoberson