Bible Heaven/Bible Heaven.iso/misc/answers/answers.012

Text File | 1990-07-10 | 16.9 KB | 285 lines

                     The Forgiveness of Sins

     All pardon for sins comes, ultimately, from Calvary, but how
is this pardon to be received by individuals?  How are people who
sin today to obtain forgiveness?  Did Christ leave us any means
within the Church to take away sin?  The Bible says he gave us
two means.
     Baptism was given to take away the sin inherited from Adam
(original sin) and any sins (called actual sins, because they
come from our own acts) committed before baptism.  For sins
committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed.  It has
been called penance, confession, and reconciliation, each word
emphasizing one of its aspects.
     During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the
woman taken in adultery (John 8:1-11) and the woman who anointed
his feet (Luke 7:48).  He exercised this power as man, "to
convince you that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins
while he is on earth" (Mark 2:10).
     Since he would not always be with the Church visibly, Christ
gave this power to other men so the Church, which is the
continuation of his presence throughout time, would be able to
offer forgiveness to future generations.  He gave his power to
the apostles, and it was necessarily a communicable power, one
that could be passed on to their successors and agents, since,
obviously, the apostles wouldn't always be on earth either.  "He
breathed on them, and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit; when
you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven, when you hold them
bound, they are held bound" (John 20:22-23).  [This, by the way,
is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man,
the other being when he made man a living soul (Gen. 2:7).  It
emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of
penance was.]
     Christ told the apostles to follow his example:  "As the
Father sent me, so am I sending you" (John 20:21).  What he did,
they were to do.  Just as the apostles were to carry Christ's
message to the whole world, so they were to carry his
forgiveness:  "I promise you, all that you bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven, and all that you loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
     This power wasn't to be used as being from themselves, but
as being from God:  "This, as always, is God's doing; it is he
who, through Christ, has reconciled us to himself, and allowed us
to minister this reconciliation of his to others" (2 Cor. 5:18).
Indeed, confirms Paul, "We are Christ's ambassadors" (2 Cor.
5:20).
     It is said by some that any power given to the apostles died
with them.  Not so.  Some powers, certainly, must have, such as
universal jurisdiction.  But the powers absolutely necessary to
maintain the Church as a living, spiritual society had to be
passed down, generation to generation.  If they ceased, the
Church would cease, except as a quaint abstraction.  Christ
ordered the apostles to "make disciples of all nations."  It
would take time, much time.  He promised his assistance: "And
behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the
world" (Matt. 28:19-20).
     If the apostles and disciples believed that Christ
instituted a priesthood which included the power to forgive sins
in his stead, we would expect the successors of the apostles--
that is, the bishops--and Christians of later years to act as
though such power was legitimately and habitually exercised.
     On the other hand, if the priestly forgiveness of sins was
what fundamentalists term it, an "invention," and if it was
something foisted upon the young Church by ecclesiastical or
political leaders, we'd expect to find records of protest.  In
fact, in early Christian writings we find no sign of protests
concerning priestly forgiveness of sins.  Quite the contrary.  We
find confessing to a priest was accepted as consistent with the
original deposit of faith.
     What's more, if the Church itself instituted confession (or
"auricular confession," as some like to emphasize: private
confession "to the ear" of a priest), and if the sacrament did
not stem directly from Christ, it should be possible to point to
a date for its "invention."  Some opponents of the Catholic
position think they can do that.
     Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, claims
"auricular confession to a priest instead of to God" was
instituted in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council.  This is an
extreme example, even for a committed anti-Catholic.  There
aren't many people with the gumption to place the "invention" of
confession so late, since there is so much early Christian
writing--a good portion of it a thousand and more years before
that Council--which refers to the practice of confession as
something already long-established.  You can't very well "invent"
something that has been around for a millennium and more.
     Actually, the Fourth Lateran Council did not introduce
confession, though it did discuss it.  To combat the lax morals
of the time (morals are always more lax than they should be, at
any time in history; that's one consequence of original sin), the
Council more specifically defined the already-existing duty to
confess one's sins by saying Catholics should confess at least
once a year.  To issue an official decree about a sacrament is
hardly the same as "inventing" that sacrament.
     The earliest Christian writings, such as the first-century
Didache, are indefinite on the procedure to be used for the
forgiveness of sins, but a self-accusation is listed as a part of
the Church's requirement by the time of Irenaeus (A.D. 190).  The
sacrament of penance is clearly in use, but it is not yet clear
from Irenaeus just how, or to whom, confession is to be made.  Is
it privately, to the priest, or before the whole congregation
with the priest presiding?  The one thing we can say for sure is
that the sacrament is understood by Irenaeus to go back to the
beginning of the Church.
     Slightly later writers, such as Origen (241), Cyprian (251),
and Aphraates (337) are quite clear in saying confession is to be
made to a priest.  (In fact, in their writings the whole process
of penance is termed exhomologesis, which simply means
confession: the confession was seen as the main part of the
sacrament.)  Cyprian writes that the forgiving of sins can take
place only "through the priests."  Ambrose makes things clear,
saying, "this right is given to priests only."  And Pope Leo I
says absolution can be obtained only through the prayers of the
priests.  These utterances are not taken as anything novel, but
as reminders of accepted belief.  We have no record of anyone
objecting, of anyone claiming these men were pushing an
"invention."
     Note that the power given to the apostles by Christ was
twofold: to forgive sins or to hold them bound, which means to
retain them unforgiven.  Several things follow from this.  First,
the apostles could not know what sins to forgive, what not to
forgive, unless they were first told the sins by the sinner.
This implies confession.  Second, their authority was not merely
to proclaim that God had already forgiven sins or that he would
forgive sins if there were proper repentance.
     Such interpretations don't account for the distinction
between forgiving and retaining--nor do they account for the
importance given to the utterance in John 20:22-23.  If God has
already forgiven all of a man's sins, or will forgive them all
(past and future) upon a single act of repentance, then it makes
little sense to tell the apostles they have been given the power
to "retain" sins, since forgiveness would be an all-or-nothing
thing and nothing could be "retained."
     And if forgiveness really can be partial, how is one to tell
which sins have been forgiven, which not, in the absence of a
priestly decision?  You can't very well rely on your own gut
feelings.  No, the biblical passages make sense, hang together,
only if the apostles and their successors were given a real
authority.
     Still, some people are not convinced.  One is Paul Juris, a
former priest, now a fundamentalist, who has written a pamphlet
on this subject.  The pamphlet is widely distributed by
organizations opposed to Catholicism.  The cover describes the
work as "a study of John 20:23, a much misunderstood and misused
portion of Scripture pertaining to the forgiveness of sins."
     Juris begins by mentioning "two main schools of thought,"
the first being the Catholic position, the second the
fundamentalist.  He puts the fundamentalist position this way:
"In this setting and with these words, Jesus was commissioning
his disciples, in the power of the Holy Spirit, to go and preach
the Gospel to every creature.  Those who believed the Gospel,
their sins would be forgiven.  Those who refused to believe the
Gospel, their sins would be retained."
     He correctly notes that "among Christians, it is generally
agreed that regular confession of one's sins is obviously
necessary to remain in good relationship with God.  So the issue
is not whether we should or should not confess our sins.  Rather,
the real issue is, How does God say that our sins are forgiven or
retained?"
     Juris says, "Since John 20:23 can be interpreted in more
than one way, it will be necessary to examine this portion of
Scripture not only in its context, but also in the light of other
Scriptures pertaining directly to this subject.  And, since we
know that God's Word never contradicts itself, what better way
could we arrive at the true meaning of this verse of Scripture,
than by comparing it with other Scriptures?"
     This sounds fine, on the surface, but this apparently
reasonable approach masks what really happens next.  Juris
engages in verse slinging, listing as many verses as he can find
that refer to God forgiving sins, in hopes that the sheer mass of
the verses will settle the question.  But none of the verses he
lists specifically interprets John 20:23, and none contradicts
the Catholic interpretation.
     For instance, he cites verses like these: "Be it known
therefore to you, brethren, that through him [Christ] forgiveness
of sins is proclaimed to you, and in him everyone who believes is
acquitted of all the things of which you could not be acquitted
by the Law of Moses" (Acts 13:38-39); "And he said to them, Go
into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He
who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not
believe shall be condemned" (Mark 16:15-16).
     Juris says that verses like these demonstrate that "all that
was left for the disciples to do was to 'go' and 'proclaim' this
wonderful good news (the Gospel) to all men.  As they proclaimed
this good news of the Gospel, those who believed the Gospel,
their sins would be forgiven.  Those who rejected (did not
believe) the Gospel, their sins would be retained."  But this
isn't a proof; these verses, and the others he lists, do not
interpret John 20:23.  Juris does nothing more than show that the
Bible says God will forgive sins, something no one doubts.  He
does not remotely prove that John 20:23 is equivalent to a
command to "go" and to "preach."  He sidesteps the evident
problems in the fundamentalist interpretation of the verse.
     It takes no scholar to see that the passage simply doesn't
say anything about preaching the good news.  Jesus tells the
apostles that "when you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven."
Nothing here about preaching--that's handled elsewhere, such as
in Matt. 28:19 and related verses.  Instead, Jesus is telling the
apostles that they have been empowered to do something.  He does
not say, "When God forgives men's sins, they are forgiven."  It's
hardly necessary to say that.  He uses the second person plural:
"you."  And he talks about the apostles forgiving, not preaching.

When he refers to retaining sins, he uses the same form: "when
you hold them bound, they are held bound."  There it is again,
"you."
     What Juris does--and his pamphlet is a good example of this-
-is to select verses, all that he can find, that mention the same
general topic, the forgiveness of sins.  Since the other verses
he gives, about two dozen of them, speak about forgiveness by
God, he concludes, improperly, that God could not have appointed
men as his agents.  The best Juris can do, ultimately, is merely
to assert that John 20:23 means the apostles were given authority
only to proclaim the forgiveness of sins--but asserting is not
proving.
     Granted, his is a technique that works.  Many readers go
away with the impression that the fundamentalist interpretation
has been shown to be true.  After all, if you propose to
interpret one verse and accomplish that by listing irrelevant
verses that refer to something other than the specific point in
controversy, lazy readers will conclude that you have marshalled
an impressive array of evidence.  All they have to do is count
the citations.  Here's one for the Catholics, they say, looking
at John 20:22-23, but ten or twenty or thirty for the
fundamentalists.  The fundamentalists must be right!  What the
readers don't notice is that the ten or twenty or thirty verses
are really just a smokescreen.
     Juris' technique illustrates that fundamentalists do not
really "find" their doctrines through a literal reading of the
Bible.  They approach the Bible with already-held views, their
own tradition one might say, and then they use the Bible to
substantiate these views.  Some can be substantiated easily, such
as the reality of the Resurrection.  But others can't be
substantiated by Scripture at all because they are contrary to
Scripture.  In these cases, Scripture is either ignored or
interpreted in an awkwardly metaphorical sense, as with John 6,
where the Eucharist is promised, or as with John 20:22-23, where
the sacrament of penance is established.
     Another point.  Fundamentalist writers often ignore John
20:22-23 since it is troublesome.  They shift focus.  They insist
there is "only one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ" (1
Tim. 2:5).  True, but they draw an improper inference.  Christ
was at liberty to decide how his mediation would be applied to
us.  It is a question of fact.
     Naturally enough, the one who is offended does the
forgiving.  When we sin, we offend God, so it is he to whom we
look for forgiveness.  But he can arrange his forgiveness either
personally and immediately or through an agent.  Which did he
declare to be the usual (though not exclusive) way to forgive
sins: by direct application to him or by means of confessing to a
priest?  If the first, then John 20:22-23 becomes unintelligible.

The words wouldn't remotely mean what they so clearly seem to
say.
     Is the Catholic who confesses his sins to a priest any
better off than the non-Catholic who confesses straight to God?
Yes.  First, he seeks forgiveness the way Christ intended it to
be sought.  Second, by confessing to a priest the Catholic learns
a lesson in humility, which is conveniently avoided when one
confesses only through private prayer--and how we all desire to
escape humbling experiences!  Third, the Catholic receives
sacramental graces the non-Catholic doesn't get; through the
sacrament of penance not only are sins forgiven, but graces are
obtained.  Fourth, and in some ways the most important, the
Catholic is assured that his sins are forgiven; he does not have
to rely on a subjective "feeling."  Lastly, the Catholic can also
obtain sound advice on avoiding sin in the future, while the non-
Catholic praying in private remains uninstructed.
     True, Christ could have decided that sins would normally be
forgiven merely through private prayer, but he knew the world
would grow old before his return.  With himself gone, he wanted
his followers to have every possible consolation, every possible
assurance, every possible help, so he instituted the sacrament
through which we are reconciled to God.
     During his lifetime Christ sent out his followers to do his
work.  Just before he left this world, he gave the apostles
special authority, commissioning them to make God's forgiveness
present to all lands, to all people, and the whole Christian
world accepted this, until just a few centuries ago.  If there is
an "invention" here, it is not the sacrament of penance, but the
notion that the priestly forgiveness of sins is not to be found
in the Bible or in early Christian history.

                                        --Karl Keating
                                          Catholic Answers
                                          P.O. Box 17181
                                          San Diego, CA 92117