Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

Keep at it, but remember, Jason simply ignores posts that back him into a corner.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -(JasonTE) writes: Another example of how the early church was not Roman Catholic, and how dishonest the RCC is about church history, is the issue of confession and forgiveness of sins. Session fourteen of the Council of Trent said about private confession of sins to a priest, a practice that none of the earliest Christians advocated (emphasis mine): "If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath EVER OBSERVED FROM THE BEGINNING, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema." (canon 6) Actually, aside from private confession to a priest being entirely absent from the New Testament, even the LATER views of the post-apostolic Christians contradict what the RCC teaches about confession, forgiveness of sins, and penance. Philip Schaff writes in his History of the Christian Church:

Why are we being assailed with quotations from Philip Schaff?  Is he Jason’s guru? It is interesting to see who Jason never really responds directly to a point raised by Catholics, but side steps the issue, and comes up with a blizzard of falsehoods, inanities, and irrelevancies. To set the record straight, Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins or not to forgive them, as the case may be. But unless the penitent tell the apostle what his sins are, the Apostle will not be able to forgive him, or to give him any spiritual counseling. So, the authority is there, the process is implied. [snip] * * * * * "The wisdom of your words sheds light, giving understanding to the simple." –Ed

Response:

Another example of how the early church was not Roman Catholic, and how dishonest the RCC is about church history, is the issue of confession

JP Jason, please tell me, how graciously did you write before you were graduated from Charm School? and forgiveness of sins. Session fourteen of the Council of Trent said about private confession of sins to a priest, a practice that none of the earliest Christians advocated (emphasis mine):

JP Alas, Jason, you have yet to reflect on the teaching of the Blessed Trinity! Oh, had you done that you would never have made the above comment! "If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath EVER OBSERVED FROM THE BEGINNING, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema." (canon 6) Actually, aside from private confession to a priest being entirely absent from the New Testament, even the LATER views of the post-apostolic Christians contradict what the RCC teaches about confession, forgiveness of sins, and penance. Philip Schaff writes in his History of the Christian Church:

JP Jason, you have indeed regressed! Remember the implications of the teaching of the Trinity?? It is astounding how you fail to track your own comments. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – At the close of the twelfth century a complete change was made in the doctrine of penance. The theory of the early Church, elaborated by Tertullian and other Church fathers, was that penance is efficient to remove sins committed after baptism, and that it consisted in certain penitential exercises such as prayers and alms. The first elements added by the medieval system were that confession to the priest and absolution by the priest are necessary conditions for pardon. Peter the Lombard did not make mediation of the priest a requirement, but declared that confession to God was sufficient. In his time [twelfth century], he says, there was no agreement on three aspects of penance: first, whether contrition for sin was not all that was necessary for its remission; second, whether confession to the priest was essential; and third, whether confession to a layman was insufficient. The opinions handed down from the Fathers, he asserts, were diverse, if not antagonistic.

JP You are correct in observing differences of opinion in those times. I am duly impressed. Have you wondered how and by what authority they were sifted into a coherent theology? More opportunity here for you, Jas. I have both written works and Logos regarding the early Church Fathers. Would you please cite me your sources? Jas, have you ever heard of the Didache? That would be excellent intellectual stimulation for you in learning what the early Church believed. It was circa 60-70 AD! Wow, huh? Here we have another example of the RCC claiming that a doctrine has ALWAYS been held in the Christian church when, in truth, it didn’t arise until hundreds of years after the apostles. Why should anybody believe that private confession to a priest and other elements of the Catholic view of forgiveness of sins are apostolic? If they’re absent from the only apostolic material we have, the New Testament, and they’re absent from and contradicted by early post-apostolic sources, AND they were issues of controversy even WELL INTO THE SECOND MILLENNIUM, why should we believe that they’re traditions that were taught by the apostles?

JP Jason, it is good to hear you talk about the Bible again. Where did yours come from originally? Don’t talk about where mine came from – just yours. More opportunity for me to learn from you if you will only oblige me. Jason http://members.aol.com/jasonte

The above link reminds me, Jason, you have yet to answer my questions about your writing on your web site. Woe is me. I will read further and try to ask questions more compatible with your pre dispositions. Jerry http://www.flash.net/~jerry53

Response:

Another example of how the early church was not Roman Catholic, and how dishonest the RCC is about church history, is the issue of confession and forgiveness of sins. Session fourteen of the Council of Trent said about private confession of sins to a priest, a practice that none of the earliest Christians advocated (emphasis mine): "If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath EVER OBSERVED FROM THE BEGINNING, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema." (canon 6) Actually, aside from private confession to a priest being entirely absent from the New Testament, even the LATER views of the post-apostolic Christians contradict what the RCC teaches about confession, forgiveness of sins, and penance. Philip Schaff writes in his History of the Christian Church: At the close of the twelfth century a complete change was made in the doctrine of penance. The theory of the early Church, elaborated by Tertullian and other Church fathers, was that penance is efficient to remove sins committed after baptism, and that it consisted in certain penitential exercises such as prayers and alms. The first elements added by the medieval system were that confession to the priest and absolution by the priest are necessary conditions for pardon. Peter the Lombard did not make mediation of the priest a requirement, but declared that confession to God was sufficient. In his time [twelfth century], he says, there was no agreement on three aspects of penance: first, whether contrition for sin was not all that was necessary for its remission; second, whether confession to the priest was essential; and third, whether confession to a layman was insufficient. The opinions handed down from the Fathers, he asserts, were diverse, if not antagonistic. Here we have another example of the RCC claiming that a doctrine has ALWAYS been held in the Christian church when, in truth, it didn’t arise until hundreds of years after the apostles. Why should anybody believe that private confession to a priest and other elements of the Catholic view of forgiveness of sins are apostolic? If they’re absent from the only apostolic material we have, the New Testament, and they’re absent from and contradicted by early post-apostolic sources, AND they were issues of controversy even WELL INTO THE SECOND MILLENNIUM, why should we believe that they’re traditions that were taught by the apostles? Jason http://members.aol.com/jasonte

Response: