Lds Bishop Forgives Sins

[3DOP]

And Donald Trump "delegated the authority" to build Trump Tower to his contractors.

 

So who built Trump Tower?  As usual, it's words.

 

Did you really think I would say something else?

 

Huh? Please. You're the one who said New Advent "seems to disagree" with saemo. Defend it or back off.   

[mfbukowski]

Huh? Please. You're the one who said New Advent "seems to disagree" with saemo. Defend it or back off.   

No thanks.  If you didn't understand the point, don't bother.  I did not write what I quoted- New Advent did.

Absolution proper is that act of the priest whereby, in the Sacrament of Penance, he frees man from sin. It presupposes on the part of the penitent, contrition, confession, and promise at least of satisfaction; on the part of the minister, valid reception of the Order of Priesthood and jurisdiction, granted by competent authority, over the person receiving the sacrament. That there is in the Church power to absolve sins committed after baptism the Council of Trent thus declares: "But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when, being raised from the dead, He breathed upon His disciples saying, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.' By which action so signal, and words so clear the consent of all the Fathers has ever understood that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles, and to their lawful successors for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after baptism"...

To Peter are given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Sin is the great obstacle to entrance into the kingdom, and over sin Peter is supreme. To Peter and to all the Apostles is given the power to bind and to loose, and this again implies supreme power both legislative and judicial: power to forgive sins, power to free from sin's penalties.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01061a.htm

Edited January 1, 2015 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

No thanks.  If you didn't understand the point, don't bother.  I did not write what I quoted- New Advent did.

 

Mark...why are you being so stubborn?

 

You cited New Advent with an apparent contradiction to what saemo said in claiming that God forgives sin through the priest. I cite New Advent which clarifies the main point of the whole thread, and confirms saemo's view as well as the Catholic Encyclopedia of New Advent to the effect that even if the Catholic priest says, "I forgive you", it is God. You reply with some off the wall comment about Transubstantiation, and when I ask you again if you still insist that either saemo or New Advent was wrong, to defend your position if you still insist you are right, you say to me: "If you didn't understand the point, why bother?" The point you could not establish was that New Advent contradicted saemo. I not only understand your "point", I know it is wrong. And then you remind me that you quoted New Advent. So? So did I and I gave context which shows that your error is understandable and not uncommon. 

 

You are wrong about saemo and you were wrong about New Advent. No big deal. Just make a retraction. You were rash. We've all been there. You would gain more credibility by admitting a reasonable mistake on your part, than by acting like there is some mysterious point that you have established which is simply too sublime for my understanding.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rory

[Calm]

Maybe he just feels the need to be contradictory and has no other opportunity to do so...I am completely projecting this, major frustration that just as we are getting down to the wire some twines are beginning to snap....hold on for two more days and then breathing space. Maybe tomorrow I can reread this thread and figure out the crossed wires...something that involves the mind and uplifts, just doesn't tire out.

New year's day...boy is this year going to be different...I may even have to develop a few muscles....

[mfbukowski]

Maybe he just feels the need to be contradictory and has no other opportunity to do so...I am completely projecting this, major frustration that just as we are getting down to the wire some twines are beginning to snap....hold on for two more days and then breathing space. Maybe tomorrow I can reread this thread and figure out the crossed wires...something that involves the mind and uplifts, just doesn't tire out.

New year's day...boy is this year going to be different...I may even have to develop a few muscles....

No it's just that I do not care really.

 

In what I quoted it says repeatedly that the priest does the forgiving

To Peter are given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Sin is the great obstacle to entrance into the kingdom, and over sin Peter is supreme. To Peter and to all the Apostles is given the power to bind and to loose, and this again implies supreme power both legislative and judicial: power to forgive sins, power to free from sin's penalties.

 

3DOP quotes something else that says that Christ is miraculously present with the priest and does the forgiving.

 

I have no clue what that means, or whether or not it is consistent.   I just feel that it is not my job to try and figure out if it is consistent or not, because I really don't care.

 

Just try to analyze this statement using logic

The Catholic recognizes that he is confessing to Christ through His priest. It would be false to say that the priest does not forgive sins. It would also be false to say that the priest forgives sins except by the authority of Christ. It would be false to say that we confess our sins to a priest alone, apart from Christ. "Ego te absolvo" involves the awesome authority that has been delegated to the Church and from the Church to the priest by Jesus Christ, who we are confident is present when the priest speaks in His name.

It says that a lot of ideas are false, and then says that they are "confident" that Christ is "present" with no explanation of how that is possible.

 

Kind of like Christ being "present" in the host- hence the transubstantiation reference.

 

And then I am being "stubborn" for not understanding it.   It doesn't matter, it is unintelligible as far as I am concerned.

 

We say that Christ does the forgiving and the bishop has the responsibility as a temporal leader to decide temporal punishment.  Why they cannot say that and leave it there is a great mystery to me.  Instead we have a string of falsities, listing what it is "not" and not harmonizing it with what it "is".  A Mormon bishop would never say "I absolve you... in the name of Christ".   How can the priest know he is getting it right?  Does that just mean that the priest has an impression- a revelation- that it is proper to say those words?  Unknown.  That is not part of the formula for Catholics because that would be a "private interpretation" and therefore, I think, not allowed.

 

To me, it is a mass of confusion, to coin a phrase.

Edited January 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

No it's just that I do not care really.

 

In what I quoted it says repeatedly that the priest does the forgiving

3DOP quotes something else that says that Christ is miraculously present with the priest and does the forgiving.

 

I have no clue what that means, or whether or not it is consistent.   I just feel that it is not my job to try and figure out if it is consistent or not, because I really don't care.

 

Just try to analyze this statement using logic

It says that a lot of ideas are false, and then says that they are "confident" that Christ is "present" with no explanation of how that is possible.

 

Kind of like Christ being "present" in the host- hence the transubstantiation reference.

 

And then I am being "stubborn" for not understanding it.   It doesn't matter, it is unintelligible as far as I am concerned.

 

We say that Christ does the forgiving and the bishop has the responsibility as a temporal leader to decide temporal punishment.  Why they cannot say that and leave it there is a great mystery to me.  Instead we have a string of falsities, listing what it is "not" and not harmonizing it with what it "is".

 

To me, it is a mass of confusion, to coin a phrase.

 

Oh Mark, stop being crabby.  If you don't care then let it go.

[mfbukowski]

deleted

Edited January 3, 2015 by mfbukowski

[saemo]

Perhaps it would help to understand that Catholic teaching is, that if we are truly sorry for a sin, we are already forgiven before we go to confession. A priest, in Confession says the words of absolution, but it is in the Person of Christ that he says them. That does not mean a priest is a delegate for Christ in the Sacrament, it means he is Christ. How would a priest know we are forgiven? The same way we all know we are forgiven. It is a known thing because of who Jesus is. There is no guess work involved.

A delegate is someone who acts for someone who is absent, and we hold no belief that Jesus is absent.

"Therefore the priest, who acts in persona Christi Capitis and representing the Lord, never acts in the name of someone who is absent but, rather, in the very Person of the Risen Christ, who makes himself present with his truly effective action. He really acts today and brings about what the priest would be incapable of...." http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20100414_en.html

I don't know what the point of confessing a sin would be if it wasn't to receive absolution. The experience is one of the Holy Spirit, it is one of two sacraments of healing, the other being the anointing of the sick. Both are for the benefit of the person receiving the sacrament, and in a wider sense, the whole body of Christ is healed when one is healed, as a sinner is reconciled to the Church as well as to God. So it is always seen in the communion of saints as well as the individual relationship to God.

Edited January 4, 2015 by saemo