I want a serious, well-thought-out discourse please.

This is a Christian issue that continues to challenge my understanding:  Confession to a priest versus confession directly to God.

I understand the two perspectives (I think).

Catholic:  Live, vocal confession to a priest is necessary

Protestant:  Confession to God within oneself is sufficient.

James 5:13-16 appears to allow for confession to each other (not necessarily a priest):



But, John 20: 22-23 appears to specifically give the power to the Apostles to forgive sins on Earth:



To further muddy the waters, a detailed explanation at this link ( https://carm.org/john2023-priests-forgive-sins ) seems to negate that notion.



My problem with that explanation is that if the apostles were not given the power on Earth to forgive sins, then under what circumstances would they need to pronounce what sins have been forgiven?

Yet, not having to confess to a priest is one of the tenets of Protestantism.

I have always had a problem with confessing to a priest being a "necessity".   What if, on your way to confession, you die in a car accident?  Does God look at your years of belief and obedience to Him and say, "Sorry, son, you almost made it.  Just one confession away from salvation.  Oh, well.  Enjoy Hades." ?

I find that really hard to believe.

Further, since there are so many Protestant denominations I doubt I have a handle on each one's philosophy of "confessing directly to God."  I have always thought the bottom line was, on the day of conversion, to confess one's "sinfulness" and need for salvation rather than reciting a laundry list of one's transgressions.

So this is a serious inquiry into what actually is confession and what is required.

What do you say?

I don't have the knowledge to give decisive answer, but having gone to Catholic schools for 15 years, I was taught that only mortal sins require confession. Venial sins can be forgiven through asking God for forgiveness. Also, I was never taught that priests forgive sins. They hear your sins and ask God to forgive you.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on dying having an unconfessed mortal sin:



The Baltimore Catechism:

Note: I am Very Protestant.

I think your perspectives are sufficient enough for meaningful conversation. In the past, the confession to the priests has been abused by the priesthood within Catholic church and is one of the abuses that gave rise to the protestant reformation. These abuses were likely curbed during the counter-reformation and this is an old and well solved problem.

On the pro Catholic side, confessing out loud to another human being does in fact have significant mental health benefits and does require significant courage to do so as long as it isn't a ritual where you are simply going through the motions.  I have never been in a confession booth but I presume a responsible priest would let you know if he thinks you are simply going through the motions.

On the pro-protestant side, I don't see a need for it to be a special priest anywhere in the bible. All believers are kings and priests.

On the anti protestant side, I do believe confessing only to God is a dangerous path because prayer can also become routine reduced to going through the motions with the added danger that there is nobody there to point it out to you. As Jesus taught in the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) you may simply be praying with yourself and God may not be a part of it.

If you believe the goal of the confession is to check a box so that you are forgiven, this is not really that much different than interpreting the law in such a way that tossing another goat on the fire satisfies God for a sin.

In my view, the goal of the confession is to change you into a better person, not to check a box. I believe this was also the point of the law. The animal in the sacrificial system wasn't some sort of payment. The animal was symbolic of you. What you did with the animal in the sacrifice was representative of what you should be doing.


Amen. However choosing the person or persons that you confess to is a delicate matter. They have to know you well enough to know when you are lying, and know you well enough to know how to get you to move past your sin. As a massive introvert myself, this is difficult for me, and where the catholic system would be advantageous in some ways.


Carm's explanation here is wrong. He leans on the scribes and students of the law as his authority that "only God forgives sins". Christ doesn't give these people much credibility for understanding how God works to begin with. Further, he's arguing that God is powerless to delegate. Just read the passage. This is a simple delegation of power. Christ was delegated the power to forgive sins by his father (John 8), and Jesus delegated that power to the apostles.  


Amen. You aren't forgiven by a law that says do such and such "or else".

I think the point here is that God is raising you into one of his children. He's training you to do as he does, hence the Lord's prayer, forgive others just as God forgives.  And since you don't reject your child over technicalities it would be wrong to project something like that onto your father in heaven. You love your child, and a loving parent/child relationship teaches you about your relationship with God. If your child doesn't confess that he did this sin, you aren't really going to reject the child. You will instead until the next time and see if kiddo does better. Likewise your father in heaven is raising you.


I agree with this sentiment.

In my view, this is what Jesus did on the cross. He crucified the flesh and the sinful desires therein and in doing so he crushed the head of the serpent, as we are to do. He lived his live giving everything to his father, and his final act was giving his life and trust father one more time.

OP, why don’t you go to the Bible and find out.
No one in God’s word ever confessed to another for forgiveness of sin.
Only God can forgive sins.

I've read the Bible extensively, all the way through more than once.

Here's the division:  Protestants subscribe to sola scriptura, i.e. if it isn't written in the Book then it's not considered valid.  Catholics (and if I'm not mistaken Eastern Orthodox) hold that church tradition,  history, and doctrine are to be consulted as much as scripture.

I try not to sidetrack..but I can't help here..that is NOT what Sola Scriptura means.  But people say it is.  I am Presbyterian.  We have a ton of traditions.  So do Baptist, Methodist etc.  No one says that traditions are not valid Ifl they aren't in the Bible,  Sola Scriptura means that what IS in the Bible is sufficient for Salvation.  You don't need to add anything else , in fact CANT add anything else for SALVATION.

hen he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23).

The issue with the discussion is the missing pieces.
Jesus appeared to the apostles and BREATHED on them and said RECEIVE the Holy Spirit.

Man is not capable of forgiving sins. However God is. The HOLY SPIRIT  is God. It is through the Spirit that sins are forgiven.

Further the reason we confess to the Priest is because he represents the community. Sin is never without rippling consequences. It affects in a destructive fashion, always through selfishness, many others.
Always. No sin has never hurt someone else. So to bring it to the light, the early Christians used to have to confess to the community. I the early Catholic church, they had to wear sack cloth, most with a certain color which
spoke to the entire community what the sin was. It was penance for the sin. The priest in confession today represents, the community who was harmed.

Also it is accountability for your sins. All of us should immediately ask God to forgive your sins. But scripture also states, :if you bring your offering to the temple but have sinned against your neighbor, leave your offering and
go make amends, then return... repentance. We have to repent of our sin and then do penance or offer retribution for the harm we've done.
Why would we go against God's word. Remember the only unforgivable sin is to deny the Holy Spirit. Jesus BREATHED on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit: If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven.
Why would Jesus be so specific?

BTW if you confess your sins in the Sacrament of confession and go out and sin again you negate that forgiveness. It's not as easy as it sounds to receive forgiveness.

If we dismiss what Christ says... that is denying the Holy Spirit.

John 6:53  Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
The process of salvation includes Baptism, living the commandments, and for Catholics, receiving the Sacraments.

Sacred tradition is as much as belief in Christ as the written Scriptures. Remember Jesus proved this in actions. The Jews carefully followed the tradition. He rebuked extremism. He was crucified because he became a powerful
political threat to the Pharisees. They were so caught up in themselves that GOD walked among them and because He came into this world in such a humble state, with zero fan fare and no trumpets the MISSED SEEING The LIVING TRUTH. Jesus level set this. Tradition is important, but seeing Our Lord Jesus Christ, Believing the TRUTH, being HIS follower, and if we love HIM we will keep His commands.
It's funny what we pick and choose in this world. Sola Scriptural  dismisses the DO or action requirements.

The richness of Sacred Scripture comes in large part from the Jewish tradition which was LIVED out and meticulously taught and handed down from generation to generation.
Without the lives and tradition we wouldn't have the Scriptures. In my world I can't have one without what Christ asks us to DO.
my 2 cents

Unfortunately, but Bible never says that it is sufficient. The Bible is a product of Divine revelation, not the source of it.

Your feet are sufficient to get you to work, but I bet you don't walk to get there.

Unfortunately for me, due to covid 19, I now work from my basement...so you'd lose that bet...

Seriously though, good to see some old faces back in this forum.

Well, as a Christian, I do believe that God instructs me to be baptized, Try to "live the commandments" ,though I break them every day many times, and receive the sacraments.  You will get no argument from me there.  I also believe that it is good to confess my sins.  Not necessarily to a Priest.  And I do see all of that in the Bible.  Again, tradition isn't always wrong or bad because it isn't in the Bible.  And I think that notion is what some do believe, and they are wrong.  If someone were on a deserted island all by themselves and had no sacraments, or priest and only had their Christian faith, it would be sufficient.  I think we agree on that.  You may say that in that case God takes that into factor and it is an exception.  I'd say there needs to be no exception.  However, a Christian should feel compelled to be baptized, should long to receive communion, should try to not break commandments.  That's the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  I understand that there are major theological differences between some of our beliefs, I also understand that there are many that are the exact same.  In the things that you listed, I think you will find that most Christians do or have done and feel like you should do.  If someone says that they aren't required for salvation, but does them because they feel they should anyways, are they worse off or better than someone who only does them because they are checking a box and doesn't really feel the need or have a want to?  

I think a lot can be learned from the thief hanging on the cross next to Jesus:

1.  Never had a chance to "go to confession"--professed his faith only
2.  Never had a chance to be baptized
3.  Never had a chance to do good works
4.  Never received a single communion or participated in any other sacrament
5.  Probably did not have any other witnesses to his conversion other than Jesus  himself, although this could be argued.

Yet, Jesus told him he would be in paradise with Him that day.

Sort of lets the air out of a lot of balloons, IMHO.

Oopsy... the thief confessed from the cross. VERY PUBLICLY an admission of guilt, repentant, and certainly penance or punishment.

Luke 23:39-43
39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him,[a] saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." 42 And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise."
 RIGHT!
So it seems you have your mind made up and you didn't need to ask attalllll.

It did just dawn on me that there had to have been witnesses or it couldn't have made it into the Bible.  Oops. Good catch.  

Confession to a Priest is actually confessing to Christ Himself in person.  The Priest is in Persona Christi.  Meaning Christ is Sacramentally Present to hear your sins.  Jesus gave them the mandate.. John 20:23.  Also one can have perfect contrition without confession.  BUT... I wouldn't bet my eternal soul on it.  And there are very stringent and specific conditions for perfect contrition.  Idk about you, but I dont think I have ever done anything perfectly in my entire life.  The Catholic church's teachings (not how people in the church act when they aren't following them)  are what Jesus asked us to do.  What other crede eats the body of Christ in order to have eternal life?  Which is necessary for salvation.  So I invite all who read this to join the one true Church!

This is another can of worms and I may start a thread on it.  I'm not a catholic but I do believe that transubstantiation occurs.  Maybe it doesn't occur in every case, but there are anecdotal accounts of host wafers being tested and are found to contain heart tissue.  You never know if these accounts are true, or if they are made up, but I allow for the miracle power of God to do such a thing.

Protestants, however, believe the "eat my flesh and drink my blood" to be metaphorical to embracing Jesus with the totality of one's existence for who He is and what He did.  He told the disciples "do this in remembrance of me", yet also said in another place that you had to "eat His flesh and drink his blood" to be saved.

Not to go off on the paranormal, but Satanists only want blessed Eucharist wafers for their desecration rituals.  Why would they demand those unless the demons know they somehow really have power?  

So, I don't want to go off on a tangent, but that is another issue.  It's a fascinating subject for sure.

The office of the priest went away with the Cross,
When Jesus died the curtain of the temple was torn in half, (Not by man but by the Father.)

The significance of this is now man can go directly to God.
Provided the person has accepted what Jesus did on the Cross, The shed Blood of Jesus is the only thing that God will accept on behalf of the sinner.

John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Also confession of sin is not necessarily repentance.

Oops! You must have missed these verses a few chapters later where the resurrected Jesus blesses the apostles, gives them a commission and the power to forgive sins. So....apparently the office of priest did NOT go away with Cross.

John 20:20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. 21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

I'm not sure how this is an oops. The Levitical priesthood didn't have the power to forgive sins, and therefore nobody in the audience would consider the power to forgive sins being associated with priesthood. Priests merely offered gifts and sacrifices for sins.

That being said, we (all saints) are the new priesthood (1 Peter 2:9).

That's a really good answer!

No! Only God can forgive sins! if your going to argue this then you have Zero understanding of the Cross of Christ.

That verse you posted, Jesus was about to ascend and commissioned the Apostles to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ around the world.
And when a person accepts Jesus as their Savior, the Apostles can say that there sins are forgiven, If a person rejects Jesus they can say they are still in their sin.
Nothing to do with any man forgiving sins.

Since there seems to be a definite division here, I think an expert in the original Greek would be helpful.  Anybody?

That is correct. Confession is invalid without contrition.  The Catholic Church does teach the same thing.  There is more to a valid confession than just the form of the confession.

The Bible is about 1 thing, The Cross.
Mans problem which is sin, and what God did about it. God sent His Son as the Sacrifice for mans sin, and its the only thing that God will accept for sin.
All the animal sacrifices, the Temple everything in the Old Testament pointed to the Cross as the solution for sin.
So God did not put in His Word that a man can forgive sin, That would deny the Cross.

I typically use the KJV, mainly because it is the best translation into English we have. And quite possibly there may be things that could have been translated better.

I don't know that the greek will help. The text in question isn't prone to mistranslation.  For various translations see here Mark 2:7, and Luke 5:21. Some are fantastical, but most say the same things.

6 But there were some of the scribes sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?”

The differences in understanding are bound up in how you answer the following questions:
-Can the scribes be taken as a credible authority for understanding God?
-Does God have the power to delegate the authority to forgive sins to men?

My answers are:
-No. They had no clue why Jesus was speaking that way. They were wrong about him blaspheming. And they had no clue about who can forgive sins.
-Yes. God can do that. Psalm 8 says God is going to put all the works of his hands under the feet of man.

These are more or less questions that the individual has to work out for themselves and will likely be coupled with the larger issues about how you understand God rather than taking the verse(s) in isolation.  

I was going to post that verse also, but did not.
What the scribes said was true, only God can forgive sin, they just did not believe that Jesus was God in the flesh.

As for your assertion that the KJV is the 'best translation,' well, all I can say is wow. News to me.

Apostolic succession is heresy

Asking for opinions on religious questions will usually produce the dogma of the religion of whoever responds to the question.  And that is entirely understandable, because if they thought they were wrong about their opinion/dogma, they would change to a different religion.  

There are some primary religious questions:
1.  Do people have to confess to a priest, or can they confess directly to God?
2.  Are we saved by works, or by grace?
3.  If having bad things happen to us is the result of our sins, why did God allow Satan to torment Job?  Job was reportedly a good man who didn't deserve Satan's torments...then you will have to veer off to a discussion of original sin.
4.  Was Jesus God, or was he the son of God?
5.  If the contention is that Jesus is God, then who was Jesus praying to in the garden of Gethsemane, and when on the cross, why would he say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" rather than simply saying "I forgive you"?

If OP is intent on hearing only the opinions of Christian religions, he may not find the answers he seeks.  Various other religions also have opinions about sin and salvation.

I hope OP finds the answers he seeks, and within those answers I hope he finds peace.

Good! You believe that only God can forgive sin, then that means that God did not give that power to man.
As I said earlier, the curtain of the Temple was torn in half, you can go directly to God thru Jesus Christ.
Absolution? I remember from my catholic days that word but don't remember what it was.
Don't matter, I never found anything in absolution, however I found forgiveness and deliverance from sin in the Cross of Christ.

Paul preached the Cross and so did Peter,

1Cor 1:17
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect
1Cor 1:18
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1Cor 1:23-24
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1 Cor 2:2
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1 Pet 1:18-19
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Like many other inconsistencies in the use of language, the Catholic priest does not 'forgive sins' although the act is frequently referred to as such. He grants absolution. Confession is to God. The priest is present to hear the words and discern that we are truly repentant. He then 'grants absolution' which means that he is confirming the validity of the confession and that the penitent has truly been forgiven. The priest, according to the catechism is 'the servant of God's forgiveness, not its master.'

This falls under the category of loosing and binding, which I'm sure you would agree was passed to the apostles.

The misuse of the terms 'forgiving sins' for the actual practice of 'granting absolution' is common, even among Catholics. Similarly, although it is a discussion for another thread, is the accusation of 'praying to saints' when in truth we simply 'ask for intercession.'

Start another thread if you wish to argue this

Its almost always true that the most vehement anti-Catholic commentary comes from former Catholics who were obviously poorly catechized. The phenomenon is a form of confirmation bias.

Preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
If it steps on your toes or your church to bad.

Then theres no need for the priest, the curtain of the temple was torn in half.
The way to the Father is thru Jesus Christ, the way to Jesus is thru the Cross.

I found this thread through the "active topics" button. Reading religious forums isn't exactly my thing most of the time.  A lot of good perspective in the responses. I have some input, based on my own life experience, but it's probably very crude in comparison to the well thought out and researched responses I've seen here.

I found God through AA. The 12 steps are nothing new and certainly not unique to AA. I think all of the steps can be traced back very quickly to religious practices that are thousands of years old.   Step 5 is confession basically:  "we admitted to God, ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs".  In this particular method of confession we admit our wrongs/sins to both God and another human!  It feels right, like there is something magical about it.

Welcome dangus!  Yes there are different views here but most are pretty good people.  Stay a while.

Didn't want to get that annulment or did Sister Mary Joan treat you badly?
I find the claim that you are simply preaching the gospel, a bit disingenuous. Its always fascinating to watch someone who clearly interprets and practices the gospel on his own claim that other interpretations and practices are invalid. How do you know that your personal interpretation is correct? You don't actually, but that doesn't stop you from impugning others. I'm sure JC himself would applaud your universal ecumenism.

Let's also allow for the notion that confession to a priest is acceptable if that is where  your faith leads you.

In other words, there's nothing really wrong with it.

What I am postulating is that we want to know if it's required.

-Belief that Jesus is the Son of God and that the only way to Heaven is through faith in Him is a requirement.

-Is taking Communion a requirement?

-Is confessing to a priest a requirement?

-Is water baptism a requirement?

Or are they just positive things that are nice to have and enhance one's walk with Christ?

I'll take this one separately. I would fail this one. The only way to the Father is through him. Heaven isn't the objective, Jesus is coming back to see us and we will reign with him.

The requirement is one of faith in the king and the kingdom though.


I believe the real requirement is a heart that longs for communion, a heart that longs for baptism, and a heart that confesses repents and moves on. The heart of faith that overcomes fear and doubt about these acts is the heart God wants and these acts of faith are the outward expression of that heart. If your heart is such that you don't want these things, then following Christ isn't right for you.

If you are looking for requirements (translate: laws), you are in fuzzy ground.  That being said, a church group is perfectly legitimate in having rules for fellowship and not offering communion with somebody who doesn't get baptized and somebody who lives a life of unrepentant sin.


If you are hung up on one of these things, evaluate why you are hung up on it. My experience is that the "who is doing the baptizing" is often a hang up. Paul writes of this in 1st Corinthians and I'll note that Jesus was baptized by somebody who wasn't Jesus, and the apostles were also baptized by somebody who wasn't Jesus.

These are a few verses from Luke chapter 24, Jesus met 2 guys on the road, and also the 11 Disciples.
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Why can't anyone understand the Scriptures? If no one can then neither can you or your church.
The Father gave 2 things, First his Son to die on the Cross to allow the believer to come directly to Him. No need for a priest to get between you.
God did not give us the Catholic church as the source of Truth, God gave us His Word, The Bible, which was written by men as they were led by the Holy Spirit.
God gave us His Word but did not expect anyone to understand? The Scriptures I posted tells us you can.
If you don't believe what God said, Thats your rejection and unbelief in God, and His Word.
You say your a Christian and believe that Jesus is the Son of God and died for your sin, Good!
Then ask Him to reveal His Word to you as you read it. No need to ask a priest whats in the Bible, read it yourself.

The point of the Emmaus narrative is that DESPITE 'opening the scriptures' to the disciples on the road, they STILL did not recognize Him. That is, until He blessed and broke the bread. So then why should we not partake of the same sacrament?
So the authority to assemble the scriptural canon, which you clearly recognize (because you have adn use a Bible), does not also include the ability to interpret that same canon?

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
I have, and I believe. But clearly you only believe the parts where your personal interpretation and belief doesn't clash with the obvious meaning.

Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Matthew 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

John 6:54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

James 5:16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

I've got dozens of these, but you get the idea. Your claim is that the scripture is written in a clearly understandable way. Indeed, much of it is. But the sampling of verses above seem pretty clear and simple to understand, but you reject them.

You make complete doctrines and claim its you church from 3 verses?
Mark 9:42-45
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Do you cut off your body parts when you sin? After all Jesus told you to. Or do you think He was talking Spiritually?
And Jesus telling Jewish religious leaders to eat His flesh, I have to search but there was a Sacrifice that they were required to actually eat. Jesus was pointing out that He was the Sacrifice that the Scriptures pointed to.

But your first Pope Peter said that Jesus was the rock. Acts 4:10-11
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
You also need to post Matt 16:15-17 where Peter confessed that Jesus is the Son of God, But God made a sinner the Rock of the Church?
if thats true then even your church says it was founded by a man, therefore it cannot be the Church that has Jesus as its Rock.


I could also post a lot more but this is getting off topic,
In the OT the priest was required to intercede on behalf of the sinner. Thats because the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin. And pointed to the Cross.
The priest was doing what Jesus Christ would do on the Cross. His Blood fullfilled the OT and now He intercedes on behalf of the sinner, No priest required.

Lifelong Catholic who almost jumped to Evangelical in my mid-20s.

What the Catholic Church teaches you is that confession your sins to a Catholic priest, who is acting in persona Christi is the ORDINARY means of having sins forgiven.  In other words, it is the path that Jesus established for the forgiveness of sins that we should follow as much as possible.  Kinda like the ORDINARY way that we earn money is by having a job.

That said, God is not limited by the ordinary means He establishes for us and those who make a perfect act of contrition for their sins may also have them forgiven if their repentance is sincere.

As far as not going to Hades because of a car crash on your way to confession - obey traffic signs and the speed limit and you should be fine.  Better, go to confession regularly and avoid committing grave sin.

I understand your dislike of confession.  It is not easy to search your conscience, compile a list of the wrongs you have done and have to vocalize them.  I just went a month ago for the first time in a year, because it is awfully uncomfortable to go through that list.  I was ashamed  that I had so comfortably fallen back into patterns of sin that I had earlier rejected.  I felt great coming out the other side and went again on this past Sunday.

I have talked to several priests about confession, including a truly gifted confessor, and they all said that they don't associate the sins with any particular person and they have heard them all.

While I find confession to often be uncomfortable, because it highlights my failings as a Christian, I also find it most effective to go frequently.  Monthly worked very well for me.  I compare it to cleaning out the back seat of your car.  Stuff tends to accumulate back there and if you let it go to long, you don't even notice how much crap piles up back there, but if you frequently clean it, you'll notice even a small bit of garbage very quickly.  I also try to do a nightly examination of conscience because, if you do it well, and don't just make a list, but dig deeply into what situations facilitate your sinning (what Catholics call the "near occasion of sin"), it can be a significant aid in avoiding sin completely.

You are of course an adult and can do whatever you want.  I offer that you might be better off humbly following the ordinary means that Jesus established for the forgiveness of sins when he sent out the apostles.  Chances are you will be welcomed back with open arms.

If you choose to not do that, you should also refrain from receiving the Eucharist if you are in a state of grave sin.

I'm not terribly interested in debating the topic with anyone; just wanted to explain the Catholic perspective.  

If you want to read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about the Sacrament of Reconciliation, you can find it here:  http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/358/index.html

Yeah, that's what I meant.
Reading is fundamental. Have you read the Catechism footnotes? Hint: verse after verse after verse of scriptural basis.
The 'body part' that took part in a sin did not commit the sin. I did. Its a defect of the heart and spirit, not of the flesh. His point is clear.
Jesus had a chance to clarify or explain his statement a verse or two later in John 6. He did not. He doubled down. The question for you is why don't you believe Him?
Because it is convenient and fits your narrative, you are claiming that the words of the 'sinner' Peter, outweigh or overshadow the words of Jesus Christ Himself?! Not a logical conclusion. Unless, of course, you believe that Jesus never said that, or that you simply don't trust Him.
You are correct.
If you are saying that no intercession is possible or necessary, then I hope you never pray for the recovery of a sick person, or for any other request. You would be violating your own tenet. That is intercessory prayer, you know. By your standard God doesn't want that. The apostle Paul would disagree since he frequently cites his prayer intentions and regularly asks for intercession.

The meaning of "rock" is the key:  Is it literally Peter, as in, the first pope, or is the "rock" the establishment of the church based on the death and resurrection of Jesus.  Answer that question and the rest is easy IMHO.



Which, in addition to just as it appears to be written, can also mean whatever is loosed on Earth will have already been loosed in Heaven, and so on.



Catholics believe the Eucharist literally becomes the body of Christ.  Protestants look to the verse about doing the Lord's Supper "in remembrance," i.e., a symbolic thing.  I believe there is evidence for both, but that's another thread.



This, to me, negates confession to a priest as  a "necessity".  However, if one's faith is enhanced by doing it that way, so be it.



But are they clear?  That's why I've given a little comment on each one.  

Walid Shoebat is a former Muslim terrorist and now a Christian preacher.  He says there are subtleties in the phrasing that make sense to someone from the Middle East but not so much someone from the west.  No, you would not literally amputate a body part.  It's metaphorical like saying you would kick a problem in the nuts or something similar.  In other words,  you would get rid of what's causing you to sin.



Exactly, building the church "on this rock" would clearly mean the sacrifice of Jesus and not Peter as the first pope.  I believe the catholics got this wrong.

Liking or disliking confession is not even relevant if it's a necessity.  My beef is in the practicality and utility of it.  In addition to the above comment I made about "missing that last confession" there is also the well-known practice of living like the Devil Monday through Friday, then confessing on the weekend and it's all good.  Some people actually live like that.

My problem is that the ritual of confession becomes the end rather than the means.  It's another mechanical ritual added by man that negates the intent of the practice in the first place:  true repentance.

Meaning is tied to keys to the kingdom as in Isaiah 22:22. And most Biblical scholars, protestant or Catholic, agree that 'rock' in that verse refers to Peter.
According to the ongoing conversation in this thread selected scripture is abundantly clear to the believer -- unless is contradicts protestant sensibilities and then it can be dismissed, or in this case deemed imprecise. Is there one truth or many? Who decides on which scripture is to be believed and which is not? What has the Church believed historically? And given that the canon of scripture was not finalized until around 400 AD, what did the earliest Christians believe, how did they practice and to whom did they turn to for authoritative guidance?

Good points.  With regard to Apostolic succession I have begun to think "there must be one standard."  As a protestant you can go start a church anytime you want to?  That bothers me.  A church is not a car wash.  There needs to be definite authority granted by God.  And I'm sorry, but all these protestants and so-called "prophets" who claim to hear the Holy Spirit telling them things is unreliable.  Note that I am NOT saying the Holy Spirit is unreliable, but man's ability to hear God's voice is clearly fraught with error, especially in the modern age.

(I don't know what you mean by protestant sensibilities:  if it cannot be supported by scripture then it is invalid in my book).

Another thing:  I have never considered myself a "Protestant."  I have yet to protest anything.  I prefer the term "Evangelical":  bringing the Gospel to the world in the end times.

I agree with this. But that is not the purpose or intent of the sacrament. If it is misused in this fashion, that is regrettable.
I do not agree with this. As mentioned above, the purpose of the sacrament is not to negate repentance, it is to reinforce repentance. The practical name of the sacrament has evolved from 'Confession', to 'Penance,' to presently and properly 'the Sacrament of Reconciliation.'