Protestant disagrees with confessing to priest

Her words were that Jesus died for us so we don’t have to go through a middle man. We can confess our sins straight to Jesus. I was not sure how to explain the necessity of confessing to a priest. Any biblical help would be much appreciated. God bless!

Try this one on for size!

John 20:23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

So if someone does not forgive my sins my sins are not forgiven?

There’s nothing wrong with confessing to the priest, but if we make it compulsory we conflate the outward sign (the confession to the priest) with the inward and spiritual grace (repentance, and God’s subsequent forgiveness). Confession is a very useful discipline, but if you think it is the only way to receive God’s forgiveness, you have dragged yourself back into the Old Testament, the “shadows” and not into the full light of the gospel.

That passage is about the power Jesus exclusively gave to the Apostles - they in turn handed down that power to forgive sins to the Bishops & Priests they ordained during the Sacrament of Penance aka Confession.

It’s not like that power was given to every individual so that if you throw a paper in my face & I get a paper cut on my eyeball & I refuse to ever give your forgiveness that you won’t be forgiven when you go to Confession - only the priest/bishop has the power to forgive or retain sin.

If we cannot confess to the priest who is our spiritual father how would we possibly confess to God the father? That would be my responce. Its all well and good to say “I don’t need anyone else to help me in the faith,” but then it becomes a mere intellectual guessing game and not the genuine Christian faith which tells us to confess our sins to one another.

Hopefully my video can help you:
youtube.com/watch?v=Gvc913pECuw

This. How would the Apostles (and their successors, the Bishops and Priests) know which sins to forgive and which to retain if they are not told?

Jesus gave them the power to forgive/retain sins… not the power to read minds.

The short answer is because that’s how Christ set it up. It’s been like that from the beginning, and is supported in scripture.

The argument of ‘show me in scripture where it says to do that’, which can really refer to anything, is not how Catholics work. The Catholic Church is the guardian of the scriptures, it was the Church who put the scriptures together in the first place, and she is the interpreter of scripture. As the Old Testament had it’s teachers in the rabbis, so that continues with the Pope and the bishops. It’s a continuation of what was set down in the beginning. We don’t have to depend on a ‘man’ to tell us what scripture means because we have the continuous teaching of the Church through the centuries. And that’s a good thing because obviously there are many teachings that contradict each other when you look at all the teachings that come under the broad spectrum of ‘Christianity’. One Protestant pastor can contradict another pastor. Who is the decider of what is true then? Christ did not set up his church for confusion and chaos which is why we have the Pope. We should be very grateful for this sure foundation, set on the rock of Christ.

Okay, explain it this way. Before Christ, people normally confessed sins directly to God. Then, Christ rose from the dead and said that all authority on heaven and earth had been given to him. He turned to the apostles and in John 20:21-23, he breathed on them and says to receive the Holy Spirit, that what they forgive will be forgiven, what sins they hold bound will be held bound.

The apostles were given the gift of forgiveness of sins, not of reading minds. How they knew which sins to forgive was determined by confessing, aloud.

If Christ had intended for us to continue confessing sins directly to God, rather than going through the Church for that, why did he even bother breathing on them and giving the apostles the unique gift of forgiveness of sin if it would only be later rendered “unnecessary”?

Matthew 3:6 John the Baptist’s converts confess sins.

Acts 19:18…Penitents confess outloud, divulge sins.

2 Corinthians 5:18-19 Paul has a ministry of reconciliation, or forgiveness of sins.

James 5:16 James says to confess sins to one another.

Christ sent the disciples in his place, who rejects them, rejects Christ. He who rejects Christ rejected the one who sent him. We believe priests are Christ’s representatives. When we reject the sacraments, we are rejecting Christ and the Church he established.

The bible verses, John 20: 22-23, on the USCCB website is: "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.”

Doesn’t the Catholic Church teach us that we receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism and Confirmation?

Look at the words of 23, " Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them", sins are forgiven them, it says, whereas “whose sins you retain are retained”, doesn’t say that they are retained by them, just retained.

Ever thought that if someone asked God, thru a Priest, for forgiveness and the Priest refused, could it be the Priest who retains these sins for not extending forgiveness as opposed to the “repentant sinner” who asked for forgiveness?

Something to think about.

Jesus did many, many things, one of which, I believe, was for us to think.

I think that Mary can be an inspiration for this thinking since according to the bible, “She pondered these things in her heart”.

how about a book recommendation: Scott Hahn’s “Lord Have Mercy” which goes into detail on the sacrament of confession, tracing its OT roots to the NT.

I think/believe that Sacramental Confession is a wonderful Gift from God and I also believe/think that one can go directly to God for forgiveness.

I think the story in the bible about the veil or the curtain or whatever it was that led into the Holy of Holies being torn in half is telling us that ANYONE can go directly to God.

Hence the word, “protestant”.

Here’s an interesting log to throw on the fire…

If she (whoever “she” is) is all bent out of shape about “the middle man”, why did Jesus say to Peter in John 21:15-17;

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me? " and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.”???

Color, bold, underline added.

Why does Jesus need a “middle man” to watch us and teach us until He comes again? Can’t Jesus just do it Himself? What can Peter do that Jesus can’t? Why would Jesus leave Peter of all people in charge?

Jus’ sayin’… :shrug:

Luke’s account (Luke 24:33-39) of the same event in John 20:23 shows that there were more than just the apostles in the room. Plus, there is no priesthood, we have direct access to God. Remember that the temple curtin was torn from top to bottom when Christ died on the cross, thus giving us direct access to God. There is no longer the need for a priesthood.

This was said to me another member here at CAF. He is a member of a religious order (a brother).

This is where Sacred Tradition comes into play. We must remember that our faith is grounded on the faith of the Apostles.

We have to look to the early Church and how it interpreted this statement. What we see is the Apostles and presbyters granting absolution. No where and at no time in Sacred Tradition do we see the laity granting absolution.

Those who were present understood that Jesus was speaking to the Apostles and not to the gathered assembly, since after the resurrection only the Apostles and the presbyters absolved.

In fact, absolution was granted only once in a person’s life. It was later that the Church granted permission for more frequent absolution. Here is another historical proof that this was not for laymen. It was the hierarchy who always made the laws regarding this sacrament, not the assembly of the faithful.

If there is no need for a priesthood and we have direct access to God, why did Jesus order Peter to feed and tend His lambs and sheep in John 21? They didn’t need Peter, did they?

Grubber… you seem to spend alot of time here telling us (Catholics) how wrong our Church is. Is that why you are here?

Please start another thread about how there is no need for a priesthood. Better yet… I’ll set it up for us. See you there.

Where does it say there where others? Christ death on the cross did not equate into complete eradication. All of us belong to the priesthood,but not ministerial priesthood.

Is sharing scripture wrong? I don’t believe I have ever said how ‘wrong’ the Catholic church is. If you believe something other than what scripture says, then that’s your choice.

Oh, by the way, my name isn’t “Grubber”. But that’s ok!

Nothing wrong with sharing scripture. Problem is the scores of interpretations. Cannot all be right or else they are all wrong.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.