THE SACRAMENTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - (PART 1) CONFESSION

This article is the first in a series on the seven Catholic sacraments, which will not be covered in any particular order.  This particular one will be on the sacrament of Confession (also known as Penance or Reconciliation).

So, first of all, what exactly are sacraments?  Webster’s dictionary describes a sacrament as:

“a Christian rite (such as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality.”

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.” (CCC #1131)

So, what they are saying is that a sacrament is a ritual that one goes through to merit grace from God.  But that is an oxymoron.  No one can merit grace.  It is like saying that I will work for something so that it can be given to me as a free gift!  But it is either a gift or something you worked for – it is one or the other.  It can’t be both:

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, since otherwise grace is no longer grace. (Romans 11:6 – NASB)

See this link on the sacraments:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/01/sacraments-gods-grace-for-sale.html

A Little History

Over the centuries, simple biblical confession has evolved in the Catholic Church into an intricate system involving “penance” (which has all but replaced biblical repentance) by “meriting” grace from God by prayer, suffering, personal works, and even indulgences.  According to the following source, Catholics see Penance as “man’s effort to satisfy God for personal sin through one’s own works.”  See this link:

https://christiantruth.com/articles/penancehistory/

The Catholic Church teaches that private confession to a priest has been the norm from the beginning (Council of Trent, Fourteenth Session, Canon VI).  But this same link above points out the fact that “auricular confession” [private confession to a priest] and “judicial absolution” [official forgiveness granted by a priest] was NOT the practice of the church from the very beginning “since there was no general agreement in the Church about the nature and necessity of such an important issue to as late a period as the 13th century.  It was a matter of debate among Scholastic theologians, most of whom demonstrate that there were conflicting opinions even among the Church Fathers.”

It Must Be to the Priest

Protestants seem to have some serious reservations about Catholic Confession.  So, what’s wrong with confessing your sins?  Don’t Protestants believe in that?  Of course, any biblically-based Protestant believes in confessing his sins.  That’s not the issue.  But the first problem is that Catholics are required to confess any “mortal” sins to a priest.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church repeatedly tells us that confessing to a priest is “essential” or a “must.”  For example:

“It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament…” (CCC #1424)

“Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance…” (CCC #1456)

“One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. The confession of venial faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.” (CCC #1493)

(See also CCC #1448 and CCC #1449)      

Misreading James

Ok, so what’s wrong with confessing to a priest?  Doesn’t the Bible tell us to confess our sins to the elders/priests in James 5:14-16:

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

First of all, the New Testament does not recognize ministerial priests, as the Old Testament does.  See this link:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/03/priesthood.html

Second, the New Testament Greek word for priest is “hiereus.”  This Greek word nowhere appears in the New Testament to describe a ministerial priest.  The word for elders in the passage above is “presbuteros,” a totally different term.  And in this context, it is not specifically talking about confessing your sins to get God’s forgiveness, to get a clean slate, as is done in Catholic Confession.  It is talking about “confessing your sins one to another,” that is, the local body of believers admitting their sins and wrongdoing toward each other, forgiving one another.  James 5:14-16 is about praying for the sick and about personal offenses toward other members of the local body. 

Third, the elders are not there to have members confess directly to them, as it is with priests in the Catholic Church.  The Bible never says to confess to a designated person, whether a priest, pastor, bishop, etc.  These can’t see the heart.  Only God can.  So, a man cannot conclusively tell another person that he (that person) is forgiven, since the man doesn’t know his heart; but he can tell him (according to the authority of Scripture) that he is forgiven IF, and only if, he repents and trusts in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  This is the New Testament requirement for salvation (Romans 1:16). 

Again, a man cannot give absolution to another, only God can, since He, and only He, knows all hearts.  Confessing to a priest, even one you trust, may make you feel good and may be comforting, but it is certainly not biblical.  See this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/08/hi-jacking-of-john-2023.html

Problems with the Box

Not only is private confession to a priest not scriptural, it has caused some serious problems within the Catholic Church.  There is an old (non-fiction) book titled The Woman, the Priest, and the Confessional, and it was written in 1875 by a former priest.  It outlines horror stories of women being betrayed, seduced and basically destroyed by perverted priests who coaxed them in the secrecy of the confessional (under penalty of eternal damnation, of course) to reveal their deepest, darkest secrets and their most sinful desires.  Some priests took full advantage of the opportunities afforded by that private confessional box.  The people trusted the priests going in, but were betrayed.  Not only did these encounters destroy many women, but many priests, as well. 

My Catholic friends, your sins and weaknesses just may be better kept unknown to most people… even your beloved priest!  With a repentant and contrite heart, confess them to God.  He will never betray you.

The book mentioned above is quite old, yet it reads like many of today’s headlines.  I firmly believe the author was telling the truth, but the scandalous and perverted sexual encounters of his day were only to get worse in time…

The Perversion is Far from Gone

A much more recent book, The Dark Box: A Secret History of Confession, by John Cornwell, is another eye-opener.  In a National Catholic Reporter review of his book, Cornwell is painted as possibly “our most gifted and persistent chronicler of Catholicism in the context of the modern world.”  Remember, this is an article by a Catholic news source, not Protestant, and it is worth noting that Cornwell, himself, is a Catholic.

The author of the review stated:

“Confession may be good for the soul -- at least sometimes -- but it has also been used to evil effect by those who would use the secrecy of the sacrament and the power of the priesthood to exploit the vulnerable.”

“In its best passages, The Dark Box connects the sexual obsessions of the earliest priestly celibates with the abuse of confession and the suffering of untold millions of everyday Catholics. For centuries, priests functioned as ‘forensic’ interrogators, coercing or merely persuading men, women and children to reveal the secrets for which they should feel most ashamed. The institutional obsession with sexual sin tells us that clergy were themselves tortured by guilt.”

See the link here:

https://www.ncronline.org/books/2022/06/history-confession-tale-sexual-obsession-exploitation

Conclusion

Confessing your sins is absolutely critical if you want to make it to Heaven.  If you want real forgiveness, confess them directly to God.  No need for a human mediator.  God understands better than anyone else and He knows all your sins before you even open your mouth, even your most secret sins!  Then why tell Him?  Because God wants you to be honest and to humble yourself and admit your sins and your rebellion against Him:

God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. (James 4:6)

I’m not saying that a Catholic cannot ever be forgiven in the confessional, but he could still be forgiven IN SPITE OF this unbiblical ritual!

Mandatory confession to a priest tends to cause one to trust in a system, rather than in Jesus and His work on the cross.

But I have a question…

If you confess to a priest, then what happens between confessions?  What if you commit a sin after Confession (and you will), and then die before your next confession?  A Catholic may say that God is always fair and He will give you an opportunity to be saved.  Ok, so if that’s true, then what’s the purpose, what’s the need, for confessing to a priest in the first place?

We have a wonderful example in Scripture of the end of the mediation of the priesthood.  The moment that Jesus Christ died on the cross, the great veil in the temple that separated the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was torn in half… exposing the Ark of the Covenant!  I can’t imagine the horror that was in the faces of the priests who were working in the temple at the time, conducting the evening sacrifice.  No doubt, they thought they were going to die on the spot, since the place of God’s very presence was exposed!

But no, God was making an incredible statement that would ring through time and eternity… WE CAN NOW APPROACH THE LIVING GOD OURSELVES, EVEN CONFIDENTLY, and know that He will hear us.  No more need for a ministerial priesthood to mediate for us:

Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:16)

Confession directly to God is part of the new and better covenant. (Hebrews 8:6)

 

  

WHAT ABOUT THE GOOD PRIESTS?

 

The Catholic priesthood has taken some serious hits in the last fifty years or more, and rightly so.  Accusations of sodomy, child molestation, homosexuality, sex abuse and all sorts of inappropriate behavior abound.  And it is not just in the United States.  Many charges have been filed, but it may very well be just the tip of the iceberg.  Time will tell.

But many Catholics believe there are some good priests in the Church, too.   I’ve seen a Catholic bumper sticker out there that says, “I am thankful for the thousands of GOOD priests.”  So why doesn’t everybody focus on them?  Perhaps there are some priests who are morally good (when compared to others), but those who make this claim are missing the whole point of the priesthood argument.  The real question is not, “Are there any good priests?”  The question is, “Does this priesthood even exist today, in God’s eyes?”

Note these analogies:

A person in an insane asylum can claim to be “perfectly normal,” but is he?  A one-hundred pound weakling can believe he is a linebacker for the NFL, but that’s obviously not true.  An unskilled and undisciplined person who is afraid of heights can think he is an astronaut, but reality says otherwise.  All these have one important thing in common: They are all deluded – they are deceived.

Actually, when it comes to the priesthood, a more accurate analogy would be someone claiming to be the emperor of the United States.  But this is an office that does not exist.  Maybe there were emperors in another time in history and/or in other places in the world, but not now and not here in America.  Anyone in the U.S. claiming to be an emperor of this nation is truly deceived.  In this time and place, there are no emperors.  There is no one here with any such title.

Likewise, the office of “ministerial priest” today is not a biblical fact.  This office was definitely a legitimate one in the Old Testament, but it is glaringly absent from the New Testament of that same Bible.  By this fact alone, I think God is telling us something!  In fact, there is abundant biblical evidence that there is no longer that type of priesthood today.  See these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/03/priesthood.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/05/does-exodus-196-support-catholic.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/06/martignoni-and-korahs-rebellion.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2018/07/where-are-all-priests-in-new-testament.html

Of course, Catholics claim that there certainly is an office of “priest” in the New Testament, but one must do all sorts of Scripture torturing to come to this conclusion.  The great majority of their arguments on this topic are addressed in the links above.

I would say that the only “good priest” is the one who recognizes that this title is unbiblical and is willing to forfeit that title in order to honor God and to surrender to the principles of Scripture.

 

THE HI-JACKING OF JOHN 20:23

If you are a Catholic or if you know many Catholics, then you are probably familiar with the concept of confessing your sins to a priest in a small private room called a “confessional.” While much has been written about the abuses of the Catholic confessional, our focus today will instead be on the Catholic Church’s abuse of John 20:23 (which they claim supports this type of confession). Here is the passage and its context:

19) So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20) And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21) 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. 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." (John 20:19-23 - NASV)

The Catholic Church tells us that when Jesus said, “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them: if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained”… that He was not only giving the disciples the authority to forgive sins, but He also intended to establish the “Sacrament of Penance,” part of which involves the Catholic practice of confessing sins to a priest (also known as “auricular confession”).

CONDEMNATION AND FALSE CLAIMS

Not only do they claim this, but the Catholic Church also condemns anyone who denies this interpretation. According to the Fourteenth Session of the Council of Trent:

If any one saith, that those words of the Lord the Saviour, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained, are not to be understood of the power of forgiving and of retaining sins in the Sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always from the beginning understood them; but wrests them, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, to the power of preaching the gospel; let him be anathema. (Canon III – emphasis added)

AND

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 VI – emphasis added)

Note the anathemas at the end of each Canon. When the Catholic Church declares someone “anathema,” she is pronouncing the gravest form of excommunication possible… one which eternally condemns the person to Hell unless and until he does penance to the Church’s satisfaction (see the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia – under the topic, “anathema”).

Note also the claim that this type of secret auricular confession was “always from the beginning understood” by the Church in this way, and “ever observed from the beginning.” But this is not true, even according to the Church’s own teachings. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that private confession to a priest was a NEW practice introduced in the seventh century:

…During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the “private” practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on [i.e., from the seventh century], the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament… (CCC #1447)

So, private confession to a priest was NOT “ever observed from the beginning,” and church history verifies this fact. Remember that these statements above (Canon III and VI) are dogmatic statements from a supposedly “infallible ecumenical council” and must be believed by every Catholic, yet they contradict (and condemn) the Catholic Catechism on this point. It seems that the Council of Trent, in a knee-jerk reaction to the Reformation, made false claims, forcing today’s Catholic to have to do damage control.

CAN A PRIEST FORGIVE SINS?

Just to be clear, we’re not talking here about when someone sins against you personally and you need to forgive him for it. This is about someone officially absolving (forgiving) all your sins, giving you a clean slate. So, in light of this, what about the Catholic Church’s interpretation of John 20:23? Is it really speaking of auricular confession to a priest? Did Jesus actually give anyone the power to forgive sins (like He does)? On the surface, it may look like it, but no, there is something else going on here. The Catholic interpretation is not valid for several reasons…

First of all, although there were “ministerial” priests in the Old Testament, there are NONE in the New Testament, contrary to what the Catholic Church claims. According to the Bible, all Christians are considered to be priests (1 Peter 2: 5, 9; Revelation 1:6). So this special class of ministers does not exist anymore. See this article on the priesthood:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=priesthood

Just this point alone destroys the foundation of the Catholic concept of auricular confession.

Second, there are absolutely no New Testament examples of anyone having his sins absolved by confessing to a designated person (unless that Person was Jesus). There are examples of public confession (Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:4-5; Acts 19:18-19), but we find no special person whose “job” it was to hear confessions (as in the Catholic Church).

Third, we DO have examples of those who prayed (or were instructed to pray) directly to God for forgiveness (Matthew 6:9,12; Acts 8:20-22; Luke 18:13-14). Jesus’ dying on the cross gives us direct access to God, without a ministerial priesthood.

Fourth, the structure of the Greek grammar in John 20:23 is rare, and important to recognize. The first pair of verbs (“forgive” and “retain”) are present tense. But the second pair of verbs, ("are forgiven" and "are retained") are both perfect tense, indicating a continual state that began before the action of the first verbs. In other words, the grammar indicates that God’s forgiving or retaining comes first, and then man’s PROCLAIMING of it afterward (based on what the person has chosen to do).

Many scholars will admit that the literal meaning of this verse, although awkward, is more accurately, “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins HAVE ALREADY BEEN forgiven,” or … “SHALL HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN.” So, Jesus was simply giving the disciples authority to announce forgiveness to people that God had forgiven already. This is not a situation where a man DECIDES to forgive or retain your sins – it is a situation in which a man simply declares / proclaims / confirms what God has already clearly stated in His Word, concerning your response to the gospel. Forgiveness depends on whether a person is repentant and how he reacts to the gospel, not on some special formula that the “priest,” rabbi, or minister uses.

By the way, a very similar type of Greek construction is found in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 concerning “binding” and “loosing.” Here again, it is NOT a case of a man deciding something and afterward, God being obligated to give His seal of approval. It is simply a proclaiming of what God has already done.

For those who may not be quite sure what we mean when we use the term “the gospel,” it means “good news” and is simply the message that God loves us enough to have sent His Son Jesus Christ to Earth to suffer and die on the cross for our sins. He paid our penalty. It is a gift that none of us deserve and the payment of a debt that we could never pay. So, we don’t have to try and earn it… all we need to do is believe / trust Him for it. This is indeed good news.

Fifth, when it comes to absolving (i.e., forgiving all of a person’s sins), it is impossible to do unless you first know with absolute certainty what’s in the person’s heart. That’s why only God can absolve, and He doesn’t need a “middle man” to do it.

It is possible for a Catholic in the confessional to fool a priest into thinking that he is genuinely sorry for his sins, when he is not. And if the priest is convinced, he will mistakenly declare that the person is forgiven. In this case, we would agree with Catholics that this person is certainly not forgiven, since he is not fooling God. On the other hand, the priest could also retain the person’s sins when he is actually repentant. The job of the Catholic priest here is (supposedly) to forgive or retain sins. Yet, he cannot faithfully and “accurately” do it because he does not positively know the person’s heart. The priest is dependent on the honesty of the penitent (the one confessing). But only God really knows the heart of man, therefore, only He can absolve sins. Even the pompous scribes and Pharisees recognized this. (Luke 5:21)

Sixth, we must look to other verses that pertain to the same topic to get a fuller understanding of a passage. Jesus’ words in John 20:23 can be understood in a non-Catholic way when reconciled with the other three gospels. Let’s be sure not to miss the fact that this passage is unmistakably connected to the “Great Commission,” to the preaching of the gospel under the power of the Holy Spirit. When Jesus said, “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you,” He was sending them to preach the gospel. When He breathed on them, He was empowering them by the Holy Spirit to do exactly that.

There are three times in the gospels where a specific group is given this Great Commission of preaching the gospel message and being sent out with power. The first time was after Jesus chose His twelve apostles. (Matthew 10:1-15; Mark 6:7-11; Luke 9:1-5) The second was when He sent out the seventy disciples. (Luke 10:1-12) The third was after He arose from the dead, when He addresses His apostles again. (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:45-49; John 20:19-23). A close look at all these passages in their contexts will tie them all together as a unit, while never suggesting the concept of auricular confession. John 20:23 must not be interpreted apart from the other three gospel accounts where the Great Commission was issued. When placing the four gospels side-by-side, you can begin to see how John 20:23 is simply the Great Commission stated another way.

Also, within the gospels, there is a common theme of shaking off the dust from the feet of the preacher of the good news, condemning those who have rejected the message:

And whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10:14-15 - NASV)

This practice was to show those who rejected the gospel that he (the preacher) wanted nothing to do with their evil ways, not even wanting their dust clinging to his feet. The concept of shaking off the dust in protest is also found in Mark 6:11, Luke 9:5; 10:10-11, and Acts 13:50-51. This act is an excellent example of “retaining” one’s sins, and is actually applying the principle of John 20:23 to those who reject the message.

Speaking of rejecting the gospel, notice what Jesus says:

The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me. (Luke 10:16 - NASV)

This ties in directly with the concepts of “dusting off the feet” and “retaining one’s sins,” yet, notice that Jesus was speaking here to the seventy disciples, not just the apostles. Both of these concepts are about rejecting the gospel, and those who reject the message / messenger are actually rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, there is a common thread here, a continuous line of thought within the four gospel accounts and when they are viewed together, there is no auricular confession.

As stated before, it is the acceptance (believing) of this gospel message with an attitude of repentance that will cause a person to be forgiven of his sins. The gospel has everything to do with forgiveness. This is because it is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes…” (Romans 1:16)

CATHOLIC ARGUMENTS

CATHOLIC CLAIM: ALTHOUGH WE CATHOLICS CONFESS TO A PRIEST, IT DOESN’T MEAN WE CAN’T CONFESS DIRECTLY TO GOD. IN FACT, WE ARE ENCOURAGED TO DO SO.

Perhaps so, but this seems to be somewhat confusing, since the Catechism repeatedly tells us that confessing to a priest is “essential.” (CCC #1424, #1448, #1449, #1456) So, this “freedom” for Catholics to go directly to God for forgiveness is questionable. It is either essential to go through the priest, or it’s not. Which is it?

CATHOLIC CLAIM: JESUS SAID, “AS THE FATHER HAS SENT ME, I ALSO SEND YOU.” JESUS WAS SENT TO FORGIVE SINS, THEREFORE, THE APOSTLES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS MUST HAVE THE SAME OBLIGATION.

Using this line of reasoning, we could also say that since Jesus came to die on a cross, then every one of the apostles and every one of their “successors” were also expected to be crucified… right? Of course not. Did God also expect all the apostles (and “successors”) to be born of a virgin, since this too, was part of Jesus’ mission? Did He expect each one to be the Messiah, or to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament animal sacrifices? Absolutely not. These things (including forgiving sins) were specific to Jesus and His ministry, not anyone else’s. Not everything that applies to Him applies to us. Being fully God and fully human, He is in a different category than we are. Once again, when Jesus said, “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you,” He was simply referring to the spreading of the gospel.

CATHOLIC CLAIM: PRIESTS ARE NOT MIND READERS, SO THEREFORE, JESUS MUST HAVE INTENDED FOR THE PEOPLE TO ORALLY CONFESS THEIR SINS TO THEM IN ORDER TO BE FORGIVEN. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN’T FORGIVE THEM IF YOU DON’T HEAR THEIR CONFESSIONS.

The very fact that priests are not mind readers weakens the Catholic position. The power to absolve sins would necessarily require infallible knowledge of what’s in the person’s heart and mind. Priests don’t have this infallible knowledge and they can’t be absolutely sure if the person is repentant, so therefore, they can’t absolve sin.

CATHOLIC CLAIM: MATTHEW 9:8 SHOWS THAT GOD HAS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO FORGIVE SINS “TO MEN”… PLURAL. NOT JUST TO JESUS. HENCE, IF “MEN” HAVE THIS POWER, THEN IT MUST ALSO BE FOR THE SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES, i.e., THE BISHOPS AND PRIESTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Notice what Matthew 9:8 actually says:

But when the multitudes saw this, they were filled with awe, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men. (NASV)

What the crowds actually SAW was the miracle of a healing (v. 6-7) – that’s what they were marveling about.

Furthermore, (if we’re going to be consistent with this passage) if “men” have the power to forgive sins today, then shouldn’t they also have the power to heal today? Can the priest say, “…which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, and walk…’” (v. 5) and then back up his claim like Jesus did? Hardly. The whole point of Jesus’ saying, “Which is easier…” was to demonstrate His authority to do BOTH, because He is God. If priests have the authority for one, why not for both? If the priest can forgive at will (like Jesus), then why can’t he also heal at will (like Jesus)? Because of inconsistent logic, Catholics cannot use this verse to support their claim.

CATHOLIC CLAIM: JAMES 5:16 SAYS TO CALL FOR THE PRIESTS IF SOMEONE IS SICK, AND TO CONFESS YOUR SINS TO ONE ANOTHER. THIS IS INDEED CATHOLIC CONFESSION.

First of all, it says to call for the elders of the church, not the “priests.” These are two different words in the Greek. Secondly, if we should “confess to one another,” then why do we never see Catholic priests confessing their sins to a lay person (non-priest)? That’s what “confessing to one another” would be, wouldn’t it? It means BOTH PARTIES confessing. The confessing is mutual… it is to “each other,” just as this same verse also says to “pray for one another.” Here again, the Catholic argument is inconsistent. If “confessing” is a “one-way” street in this context, then “praying” would have to be also. But we know that Catholics expect both sides (priests and “laity”) to pray for each other. So, the Catholic interpretation reduces this verse to nonsense.

When the Bible says to “confess to one another” or “forgive each other,” it is simply saying that we must be willing to humble ourselves and admit our faults and shortcomings to our brothers and sisters, in order to reconcile with each other. THAT’S what James 5:16 is about. This verse in no way supports auricular confession.

CONCLUSION

The apostle Paul, when expressing his deep concern for the souls of men, did not ask, “How will they be forgiven without an ‘official absolver’?” No, he asked, “How will they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14) He was most concerned with the spread of the life-giving message of the gospel. Paul knew very well where to find truth and forgiveness.

Please don’t be deceived – no one -- no “priest,” no rabbi, no minister… has the power to absolve sins. That is reserved for God, alone. God expects men to proclaim the gospel by the authority of His Word. And IF you repent of your sins and trust only in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, then you are indeed forgiven. We are never told in Scripture to confess our sins to a particular person. Again, forgiveness does not depend on a man telling you that you are forgiven, but it depends on your repenting and accepting the gospel.

The Catholic Church’s attempt to hi-jack John 20:23 and force it (under penalty of anathema, no less) to apply to auricular confession is:

· contradicting many scriptural principles

· ignoring the continuity and context of all four gospels as a unit

· simply reading a Catholic concept into the passage, and

· attempting to put people in bondage to the Catholic sacramental system.

Yes, we CAN and SHOULD go directly to God for forgiveness. We don’t need a “middle man,” a “professional forgiver” – what we do need is a right relationship with the One Who died on the cross for us… because He is the only one who knows our heart.

The Priesthood

“If any one saith, that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood; or that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins; but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or, that those who do not preach are not priests at all; let him be anathema.” (The Catholic Church’s Council of Trent, Session 23, Canon 1)

While many of the world’s religions have an ordained priesthood, the concept of a Christian ministerial priesthood is not found in the New Testament, but is something that has evolved over time. There are a number of groups who claim to follow Jesus Christ that maintain a priesthood. For example, the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and even some Protestant churches, like Anglican / Episcopalian, and some Lutheran churches. The Mormon Church also has a priesthood. Yet, none of these “priesthoods” are valid (according to the Bible), but we will focus on the most prominent: the Catholic priesthood.

The Catholic Church insists that we must have a distinct, ordained, “hierarchical” priesthood today. But, the truth is, the only types of Christian “priesthood” that we find within the pages of the New Testament are the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1), and the “universal priesthood” of all believers (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6). While we are able to find Jewish and pagan priests mentioned in the New Testament, we don’t see any Christian “ministerial” priests to mediate between God and man (as we find in the Old Testament).

The Apostle Paul mentions the functions and offices of the New Testament church in chapters 3 and 5 of 1 Timothy, and Titus chapter 1. He also gives specific instructions for ministry, church order, gifts and service in 1 Corinthians chapters 11-14, and in Ephesians chapter 4… and yet, the ministerial office of “priest” is strangely absent. There is not a single mention of a “priesthood” in these contexts. If God had intended a Christian ministerial priesthood for today, one would think that such a critical position should be evident in the New Testament. But it isn’t there.

But, let’s look at some of the Catholic arguments for the priesthood:


CATHOLIC CLAIM – IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, THERE WERE THREE TYPES OF PRIESTS: HIGH PRIESTS (LEVITICUS 21:10), MINISTERIAL PRIESTS (EXODUS 29:1), AND A “UNIVERSAL” PRIESTHOOD (EXODUS 19:6). THE BIBLE NEVER SAYS THAT THIS HAS CHANGED, SO THE “THREE-FOLD PRIESTHOOD” IS STILL HERE TODAY.


We agree that there was a “high priesthood” and a “ministerial priesthood” in the Old Testament. But it is wrong to think that Exodus 19:6 proves that there was a “universal priesthood” in Old Testament times. Let’s look at the context:

Exodus 19:5 - Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Exodus 19:6 - And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Yes, God promised Israel that they would be a “kingdom of priests” and a “holy nation.” But, this is a yet UNFULFILLED promise to the Jews. Notice that God’s promise to Israel was CONDITIONAL; that this would happen IF (and ONLY if) they would obey God’s voice and keep His covenant (Exodus 19:5). But they didn’t. Over and over, Israel had broken God’s covenant and disobeyed His commands (e.g., Jeremiah chapter 11, 13, 22, 34, etc.). This continued even until the very end of the Old Testament period, where even the “ministerial” priests had profaned the covenant (Malachi 2:8-10). Even to this day, Israel (as a nation) is disobedient and blinded to the truth (2 Corinthians 3:12-14; Romans 11:25, 31).

Therefore, Israel could not claim that it was a “kingdom of priests” and a “holy nation,” and thus, has not yet become that “universal priesthood.” This will not happen for the Jews, as a nation, until Jesus Christ returns, as Isaiah prophesied (Isaiah 61:6). So, since the “universal priesthood” never happened in the Old Testament, this “three-fold priesthood” concept didn’t exist then, and there is no reason to think that it must be a model for the church today.


CATHOLIC CLAIM – WE KNOW THAT THERE WERE PRIESTS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT BECAUSE THE ENGLISH WORD FOR “PRIEST” IS DERIVED FROM THE GREEK “PRESBUTEROS”, TRANSLATED AS “ELDER” IN MOST ENGLISH BIBLES. SO, “ELDER” ACTUALLY MEANS “PRIEST”.


While it is true that our modern word “priest” is derived from the Greek word “presbuteros”, it does not mean that the two words are the same. Derivatives are not definitions. The modern word “Presbyterian” is ALSO a derivative of “presbuteros”, but I don’t think any Catholic would try to say that the New Testament “elders” were Presbyterians. Anyway, the New Testament ALREADY has a Greek word for priest, “hiereus,” not “presbuteros,” and these two Greek words are never used interchangeably. So, this argument certainly does not prove that biblical “elders” were priests.


CATHOLIC CLAIM - “HIEREUS” REFERS TO THE PRIESTS OF THE OLD COVENANT. SO, A SEPARATE WORD, “PRESBUTEROS”, IS USED TO REFER TO THE PRIESTS OF THE NEW. THERE IS STILL A DISTINCTIVENESS AND UNIQUENESS TO THE NEW COVENANT PRIESTHOOD THAT WARRANTS THE USE OF A DIFFERENT WORD.


“Hiereus” does indeed refer to the priests of the Old Covenant, but not just to the Old Testament priests. It ALSO refers to the New Testament universal priesthood of believers (Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). Furthermore, asserting that “presbuteros” is the “new” term for priest is simply begging the question, i.e., just an assumption without proof. We also believe that the fact that “hiereus” is used to describe priests from both Testaments is further evidence that the priesthood has changed from a “ministerial” form (Old Testament) to a “universal” form (New Testament).


CATHOLIC CLAIM – YOU MAY ASK, WHY DON’T WE SEE THE WORD “PRIEST” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT? THE CHRISTIANS OF THE FIRST CENTURY WOULD AVOID USING “PRIEST” IN NAMING THE MINISTERIAL OFFICES OF THE CHURCH, BECAUSE IT WAS ALSO THE SAME TERM BEING USED BY MANY JEWISH AND PAGAN PRIESTS. SO, TO AVOID CONFUSION, EARLY CHRISTIANS USED LANGUAGE TO DISTINGUISH THEIR PRIESTS FROM THE OTHERS.


There were plenty pagan priests in the time of the Old Testament. But it seems that neither the Lord nor the Jews had any problem calling their own ministers “priests” at that time. They didn’t seem to be concerned about any confusion that might arise between the names of the two groups. Furthermore, the term “elder” was kept over from the Old Testament. The New Testament word used for the Jewish elder (“presbuteros”) is exactly the same word used for the Christian elder. If confusing terms were an issue, why didn’t the early Christians avoid the term “elder” altogether? So, this Catholic argument is just too weak to be credible.


CATHOLIC CLAIM – THE VERY REASON THAT ENGLISH SPEAKERS REFER TO THE ORDAINED MINISTRY WITH A WORD (PRIEST) THAT IS DERIVED FROM “PRESBUTEROS” IS BECAUSE THESE MINISTERS SERVE THE SAME FUNCTION AS BIBLICAL ELDERS DID.


But one could argue that many of today’s Protestant pastors / ministers ALSO serve the same function as the New Testament “elders” did, because they also preach the gospel and administer communion, baptism, etc. So this claim proves nothing.

Another thing… if Catholic priests (especially those of the Latin rite) are supposed to be the same as New Testament “elders,” then why are they not allowed (required?) to be the “husband of [but] one wife” (Titus 1:6)? We know that there are exceptions in the Catholic Church, but Paul is speaking of the NORM for elders, here. And the norm is to be married. (We are not debating the virtues of celibacy, but our point is simply that, according to Titus, the great majority of Roman Catholic priests cannot be biblical elders). So, it can’t be said that priests and elders are one and the same.


CATHOLIC CLAIM – IN ROMANS 15:15-16, PAUL CALLS HIMSELF A PRIEST WHEN HE REFERS TO HIS MINISTRY AS A “PRIESTLY SERVICE” (GREEK, “HIEROURGOUNTA”).


First of all, Paul never uses the word “priest” to describe his own office, but considers himself an “apostle.”

Secondly, in NONE of his epistles does he call any leader in the church a “priest,” when he had ample opportunity to do so.

Thirdly, this “priestly service” is simply describing the work of spreading the gospel, which ALL Christians are commissioned to do.


CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT IF WE DON’T HAVE ANY PRIESTS TODAY, HOW CAN WE OBTAIN THE SACRAMENTS, OR PRESENT SACRIFICES TO THE LORD, LIKE THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS?


Ok, first, just because there are no ministerial priests, this doesn’t mean that there are no church leaders to minister to the people.

Furthermore, without getting into the concept of “sacraments,” and any role they might play, the point still remains that ministerial priests are NOT found in the New Testament, regardless of whether someone believes they should be there.

And finally, the only sacrifices that need to be offered today are spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5), our praise (Hebrews 13:15), our bodies (Romans 12:1), our finances (Philippians 4:18), etc. Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, see our two-part article on the Eucharist, elsewhere on this blog.

Note that the author of the book of Hebrews takes great pains to distinguish the difference between the Old Covenant (types and shadows) and the New (and better) Covenant. The main function of a ministerial priest of the Old Testament was to offer sacrifices (repeatedly) to God in order to atone for sin. But Hebrews 10:10-12, 18 tells us that the price has now been paid, and there is “NO MORE offering [sacrifice] for sin.” Therefore, no more atoning sacrifices are needed. Jesus Christ has paid the full penalty on the cross of Calvary. We now have a perfect atonement to embrace, once for all (Hebrews 9:12, 28; 10:10). No ministerial priests are needed now to offer sacrifice to God. Their “job” is cancelled out. This was demonstrated by God’s tearing of the veil in the temple (Matthew 27:51). It means all believers now have direct access to God without “ministerial” priests. Jesus Christ is the FULFILLMENT of the Old Testament type of priesthood and its sacrifices.

CONCLUSION

We are not saying that there are no leaders in the church today, just that there are no “ordained / ministerial” priests. As important as the priesthood is to Catholics, it is hard to ignore the fact that this priesthood is never mentioned in Paul’s writings. To emphasize the point once more, it is not as though it is absent from only a tiny letter in the Bible, like Philemon or 3 John, but it is absent from the WHOLE New Testament. This is too much of a glaring omission to ignore.

The life, the very core, of a priestly system is the sacrifice. The sacrifice is the whole focus of the priesthood. If you remove the core of any such system, you take away the life and purpose of that system. If there is no more sacrifice, there is no more system. Its purpose has been served. This is the Achilles’ heel of the Catholic priesthood. Not only is the priesthood NOT in the New Testament, but it also contradicts the New Testament, since Hebrews tells us that there is NO MORE SACRIFICE for sin (Hebrews 10:18).

According to its Catechism, the Catholic Church makes some very special claims about its priests. For example, they are supposedly able to absolve (forgive) a man’s sins (CCC #1495); they have “a ‘sacred power’ which is none other than that of Christ” (CCC #1551); they “possess the authority to act in the power and place of the Person of Christ, Himself” (CCC #1548); and the priest “divinizes” and he “is divinized” (CCC #1589), i.e., he makes divine and is made divine…

Once again, we see the Catholic Church making some extraordinary claims about itself, and then it asserts that these claims have (at least some) biblical support. But upon examination, these claims are found to be just that… mere claims, and not truth; they are deceptive claims that actually deny biblical truth.

So, this creates some serious implications for the Catholic faithful, and should be disturbing to those Catholics who would take an honest look at the evidence presented. We have to ask ourselves: Are we going to believe the Catholic hierarchy, or are we going to believe God’s infallible Scripture?