The debate between Nemsio and lucifershammer, in response to The Chess Express’s question got sidetracked—I am one of the “sidetrackers,” and, as I was interested in their exchange, I put the whole thing in a new thread. Here it is—


[/b]The Chess Express:[/b] Where in the Bible does it talk about a priest having the power to forgive sins?

Lucifershammer: Easy one:

19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (John 20:19-23)

Also see Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18.[/b]

Nemesio

Lucifershammer:

You cite an interesting passage in St Matthew 16:19. Every English translation I've ever
seen has been dishonest relative to the Greek. The verse reads, in Greek:

Doso soi tas kleidas tes basileias ton ouranon,
I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens,

kai o ean deses epi tes ges estai dedemenon en tois ouranois,
and what if you might bind on the land will be having been bound in the heavens,

kai o ean lusus epi tes ges estai lelumenon et tois ouranois.
and what if you might loose on the land will be having been loosed in the heavens.

(You will note that St Matthew 18:18 is similarly phrased).

This is not the casual relationship that EVERY translation implies; that is, if the Disciples
forgive them, they will be forgiven. No -- indeed -- it indicates that if the Disciples deem
them forgiven, it is simply because they were already forgiven in heaven, as per the passive
past perfect tense of the Greek clearly indicates.

St John 20:23 is similarly written:

[...He said...'Receive the Holy Spirit.] an tinon aphute tas amartias apheontai autois,
...of whom you might send off the sins they have been sent off to them,

an tinon kratute kekratuntai.
of whom you might hold they have been held.

Again, the sins in question have already been determined forgiven or not is clearly
indicated by the careful grammar of the Greek and is totally concordant with the Matthian
reading.

lucifershammer:

Nemesio,

Thanks for the Greek transliteration. One learns something new every day!

Nevertheless, one needs to be careful how one uses tense in a situation that involves a being that is essentially out of Time - i.e. God. Does it make sense to say that sins have 'already' been forgiven by God prior to absolution by the priest if God's forgiveness is an event that does not take place in time?

I think the idea of causality is more relevant here. The priest is only able to absolve the sins of the penitent because God absolves the sins of the penitent and is only able to forgive the sins of the penitent because God forgives the sins of the penitent. So, the situation here is not, AFAICS, one where an Infinite God is at the mercy of arbitrary decisions of priests on earth*. Rather, the priest's action is more of a final confirmation to the penitent that his sins have, indeed, been forgiven.

Cheers,

LH

---
* This reminds me of the situation in the film Dogma where a supposed "indulgence" frees any person who walks through the door of some church from all sin (including mortal sin). Naturally, the film gives you a good idea of what the Church does not teach.

Nemesio:

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Does it make sense to say that sins have 'already' been forgiven by God prior to absolution by the priest if God's forgiveness is an event that does not take place in time?

This doesn't make sense. Can you cite any other example of things that happen in heaven
that take place out of time in the context of the Gospels? Every other example of heaven-
related activity is definitively in the past, present or future, not pecularly arranged as in these
passages.

I think the idea of causality is more relevant here. The priest is only able to absolve the sins of the penitent because God absolves the sins of the penitent and is only able to forgive the sins of the penitent because God forgives the sins of the penitent.

I would agree that, indeed!, the idea of causality is the issue.

Rather, the priest's action is more of a final confirmation to the penitent that his sins have, indeed, been forgiven.

That's right. The Greek text makes it clear that it is a confirmation but the translations
invariably make a casual link that is not there. The Greek also makes it clear that
the absence of forgiveness on earth does not entail the absence of forgiveness in heaven.
That is, if a person sins such that a priest does not know about it, it does not entail that a
priest is needed to confirm that the sin is or is not forgiven. The text is very clear in that
regard.

That having been said, I am not trying to undermine the value and significance that a good
Confession can have to the faithful, or its Sacramental nature. However, the causal
link between earth and heaven is not supported by the Scriptures and, consequently, its
necessity for entering into heaven is, similarly, Scripturally indefensible.

Nemesio

lucifershammer

This doesn't make sense. Can you cite any other example of things that happen in heaven that take place out of time in the context of the Gospels?

I can't think of Gospel-specific examples (and certainly cannot quote the original Greek) - but one event I can think of is related to the Crucifixion. If the Crucifixion was responsible for the reconciliation of mankind to God, then this reconciliation could not have happened in Time - because there are people who died before Christ who were saved (e.g. Abraham).

Hope that makes sense.

The problem is that verbs require tense, so we cannot speak of events taking place outside Time without using tense; but, of course, the usage of tense in this case does not imply that the event takes place in Time.

You're right that, if a baptised Christian has committed a mortal sin, then the sacrament of Reconciliation is not necessary for entry into heaven - a perfect contrition will also do. But how many humans are capable of that?

Nemsio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If the Crucifixion was responsible for the reconciliation of mankind to God, then this reconciliation could not have happened in Time - because there are people who died before Christ who were saved (e.g. Abraham).

If this were the case, then we would see St Paul saying something
like: When Christ was on the Cross, we had been saved from our sins,
or some other weird verbal construction. But we don't see that. We
see a clear causal link: Because Christ was...therefore we are....

The Church teaches that Christ descended into Hell. According to the
teaching of the Church in the Catechism (#633 in my version, which is
the third item under Article 5 in the discussion of the Creed):

Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went
down, 'hell' -- 'Sheol' in Hebrew or 'Hades' in Greek -- because those
who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case
for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the
Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus
shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received
into 'Abraham's Bosom': ' It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited
their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when
he descended into hell.' Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver
the damned, nor to destory the hell of damnation, but to free the
just who had gone before him.

(end quote from the Catechism)

So, according to the infallibile teaching of the RCC, there is a definitive
chronological sequence of salvation: Abraham was in hell with the
damned, awaiting the Savior to come which, by necessity, could not
happen until the first Good Friday in 30/33 CE. The following items in
that article elaborate on this point.

So, there is a definitive causal link between the Crucifixion and
Abraham's (et alia) salvation and ascent into heaven. Your example
is, consequently, not relevant.

The problem is that verbs require tense, so we cannot speak of events taking place outside Time without using tense; but, of course, the usage of tense in this case does not imply that the event takes place in Time.

Of course. And a good way to indicate that something is not taking
place in time is to use multiple tenses, such as in Hebrews when it
says that Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. However,
the verb usage in the contexts I mentioned are very specific and
very unusual. They connote a clear relationship between
the disciple (priest) and the Forgiver (God). Basically, what it says is
if a disciple forgives a sin, it will have already been forgiven in heaven.
To suggest that the latter is somehow out of time is illogical and
textually absurd when other, more clear language is available, e.g.:
when a disciple forgives a sin, it has been forgiven, is forgiven, and
will be forgiven for ever, or something.

edit: That is, the very unusual verb form draws one's attention. Why
would they choose a most bizarre format to indicate something (e.g.,
timelessness) which could easily be expressed a multiplicity of other
ways (and, indeed, is used in other passages in the Christian
Scripture)? The logical answer is: because these passages were trying
to express something different, something clear (as the unusual
verb form indicates).

You're right that, if a baptised Christian has committed a mortal sin, then the sacrament of Reconciliation is not necessary for entry into heaven - a perfect contrition will also do. But how many humans are capable of that?

Please don't misunderstand me, Lucifershammer. I deeply value the
ritual of Reconcilliation and, texts nonewithstanding, the experience of
the Sacrament can bring a person to a deeper understanding of the
nature of sin, and its impact. And, if a person approaches his/her
confession without a spirit of true contrition, the Absolution doesn't
take place either, as far as I know.

However, the Church asserts a causal link between a priest's
forgiveness (through his office and the ministry of the Church) and
God's. This is utterly unsupported by any reasonable reading of the
original text (both St Matthew's and St John's disparate accounts).

You can always play the 'Church's infallible teaching' card, where if the
Church says it, it must be true. And I can't argue with an institution
which states theological truths axiomatically. However, what I can do
is argue that their use of the aforementioned Scriptures justifies their
position. They most evidently and conclusively do not. There were
many ways to phrase those two passages to signify casuality or
timelessness. However, the extremely peculiar turns of phrase
common to two Gospel traditions which have very little else in common
speaks with a certain authority (and you said it above): the sins are
forgiven by the Father in heaven, and that forgiveness is affirmed by
the disciple. Because no casual link is established, necessity is not
in question.

Nemesio

P.S.
Also, what you said isn't quite true. Perfect contrition can absolve
a person of their moral sins if they fully intend to go to
Confession as soon as possible. Such a circumstance is considered to
be extraordinary, such as 'grave' situations where a person wants to
receive the Eucharist, is not in a state of Grace, and is mortally ill.

When you read it all printed out straight, it's even more pointless and boring then when we were interrupting it; it's like the BigEndians and LittleEndians in Gulliver's Travels. But I'll leave them alone from now on while they work it out - i guess it's cheaper than one of them Lateran Councils or whatever.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Nemsio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If the Crucifixion was responsible for the reconciliation of mankind to God, then this reconciliation could not have happened in Time - because there are people who died before Christ who were saved (e.g. Abraham).

If this were the case, then we would see St Paul saying something
like ...[text shortened]... here a person wants to
receive the Eucharist, is not in a state of Grace, and is mortally ill.[/b]

Originally posted by no1marauder
When you read it all printed out straight, it's even more pointless and boring then when we were interrupting it; it's like the BigEndians and LittleEndians in Gulliver's Travels. But I'll leave them alone from now on while they work it out - i guess it's cheaper than one of them Lateran Councils or whatever.

Originally posted by vistesd
The debate between Nemsio and lucifershammer, in response to The Chess Express’s question got sidetracked—I am one of the “sidetrackers,” and, as I was interested in their exchange, I put the whole thing in a new thread. Here it is—


The Chess Express:[/b] Where in the Bible does it talk about a priest having the power to forgive sins?

Lucife ...[text shortened]... entry into heaven - a perfect contrition will also do. But how many humans are capable of that?

Bump for LH.

Nemesio

Originally posted by KellyJay
I assume in all of this you believe an earlthy priest is required for
the forgiveness of our sins through a ritual within a certain church
body? I guess one would have to assume there is only church that
can do this too?
Kelly

Originally posted by Nemesio
Bump for LH.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Ahem

Originally posted by Nemesio
Ahem

Originally posted by vistesd
The debate between Nemsio and lucifershammer, in response to The Chess Express’s question got sidetracked—I am one of the “sidetrackers,” and, as I was interested in their exchange, I put the whole thing in a new thread. Here it is—


The Chess Express:[/b] Where in the Bible does it talk about a priest having the power to forgive sins?

Lucife ...[text shortened]... entry into heaven - a perfect contrition will also do. But how many humans are capable of that?

You cite an interesting passage in St Matthew 16:19. Every English translation I've ever seen has been dishonest relative to the Greek. ... This is not the casual relationship that EVERY translation implies; that is, if the Disciples forgive them, they will be forgiven. No -- indeed -- it indicates that if the Disciples deem them forgiven, it is simply because they were already forgiven in heaven, as per the passive past perfect tense of the Greek clearly indicates.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Nemsio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If the Crucifixion was responsible for the reconciliation of mankind to God, then this reconciliation could not have happened in Time - because there are people who died before Christ who were saved (e.g. Abraham).

If this were the case, then we would see St Paul saying something
like ...[text shortened]... here a person wants to
receive the Eucharist, is not in a state of Grace, and is mortally ill.[/b]

However, the Church asserts a causal link between a priest's forgiveness (through his office and the ministry of the Church) and God's. This is utterly unsupported by any reasonable reading of the original text (both St Matthew's and St John's disparate accounts).

Bump for my own sake.....

Finally! Sorry for the delay.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
(a) Are there any other examples of the use of the past perfect tense in anywhere else (other than Mt 16:19, 18:18 and Jn 20:23) in the Bible? Are there any special implications of this tense in Greek?

I don't know the definitive answer to this, but, in my experience
reading the Greek, I have to say 'no.' I don't know what you mean
by 'speical implications.' My understanding of language is that the
goal of any text or speech is to communicate meaning. Both St
Matthew and St John are carefully written texts, demonstrating great
theological insight and sensitivity and literary erudition (as opposed,
e.g., to St Mark which is clumsy and, at times, crude in many spots).
As such, I have to imagine the fact that the two of them chose a
rather unusual verb form is a deliberate action signifying a specific
connotation. When the English versions (all of the ones with which I
am familiar) smooth it out to a different translation (one which makes
a causal link explicit), I vociferously object!

(b) Is the NAS translation provided above a sufficiently honest translation (without being completely un-readable) in your view?

No. Translation is about transmitting meaning. If you transmit a
different verb form such that the meaning is changed, you have failed
as a translator. It's not about 'transliteration' (a word for word account).
Leave that to the scholarly publications and concordances. It's about
representing a foreign language's sentiments identically in the new
language. Sometimes this means adding words, sometimes adding
clauses (in those languages that lack certain verb forms), sometimes
it entails using idioms or even vernacular.

In other words, you are asserting that the Church teaches that God forgives sins because the priest absolves them, correct?

Could you cite from the CCC to back this position?

CCC 1424 -- It is called the sacrament of forgiveness, since
by the priest's sacramental absolution God grants the penitent
"pardon and peace."

CCC 1441 -- Only God forgives sins...Further by virtue of his divine
authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name. (footnote
reads: cf. Jn 20:21-23 [!!!!!!!])

CCC 1444 -- In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins
the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners wtih the
Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most
notably in Christ's solemn words to Simon Peter: 'I will give you the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven' (footnote reads: Mt 16:19; cf. Mt 18:18; 28:16-20)....

CCC 1445 -- The words bind and loose mean: whomever
you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from the
communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your
communion, God will welcom back into his. Reconciliation with the
Church is inseperable from reconciliation with God.

(End quotations from selections of the Catechism.)

This is pretty clear, Lucifershammer: If the priest doesn't, God
consequently doesn't. This has no basis[/i] in the Scripture
texts which are explicit that if a priest (to simplify our discussion, I
am accepting the transferrance of power from St Peter onwards) looses
or binds something, it is as a consequence correspondingly
loosed or bound in heaven. The Church, furthermore, says that by
sinning and breeching with the Church one [b]must be reconciled with
the Church by means of this Sacrament in order to be in
Communion with God. This is, of course, supported by the incorrect
translation. But it is not supported by the correct one, wherein the
priest affirms God's position (of either bound or loosed), but does
not effect it, and, as such, does not make the Sacrament a necessity
but a means of confirmation God's stance.

Nemesio