Official stance on who are sinners?

A place to discuss Catholic topics and issues

Moderator: Moderators

Composer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Western Australia

Official stance on who are sinners?

Post #1

Post by Composer »

Am I correct that the catholic members of the catholic church have priests to intercede / other role regarding the sins admitted at Confession by members of the catholic congregation?

Is confession considered compulsory?

Are the priests themselves also considered sinners and if so, to whom do they go for confession and I suppose have their personal sins ' forgiven / other? '.

1. Are there any exceptions where certain/any members or clergy are considered to be totally without sin and 2. therefore never need to confess or take part in confession and 3. IF that is the case upon what basis?

Thank you
Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

Composer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Western Australia

Post #21

Post by Composer »

Wootah wrote:
Composer wrote:
Wootah wrote:None of your conclusions can be logically drawn from that.
I proved already they are and legitimately so, despite your illegitimate denial.
Wootah wrote: Why do you assume other priest's are not 'regular catholic believers'?
So you therefore equate ordained priests co-equal to ordinary Un-ordained rank and file believers? Interesting slip up on your part, but I don't believe you and you don't even believe that yourself!

Image
Why is there a slip up on my part?
Because you wrote -
Wootah wrote: Why do you assume other priest's are not 'regular catholic believers'?
Hence your comment implies we non-catholics would be incorrect in believing that priests are not ' regular catholic believers '.

I maintain they are not regular believers in the eyes of your catholic cult, but ordained by the catholic cult, raising them above ordinary believers. Rather a strange notion and quite silly, fundamentally because you claimed they are sinners just like all yourself & all catholics and ALL require regular confession, even your popes!

So " Are they considered by your catholic cult to be regular catholic cult believers ' or not? "

Image
Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

jedicri
Scholar
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:40 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #22

Post by jedicri »

Composer wrote:
1. The bible is a man made Story book and the literal existence of the biblical jesus outside of Story book fairy land = zero!
jedicri wrote: Mere opinion.
So your alleged evidence apart from a Story book bible is what?

So your alleged evidence ANY acclaimed ' holy-text ' is the words of ANY literal god(s) is?
You are were the one that made the claim that the Bible is a "man made Story book." The onus is on you to prove your claim.
2. I see the bible Story book has failed you catholics again and as usual so you duck off elsewhere looking for a scrap of legitimacy that you can never legitimately find regardless! LOL!
jedicri wrote: Nice evasion. You did not answer the question: Where does it say in the Bible that everything pertaining to the teachings of Christ must be found there in order for it to be recognized or legitimized?
I evaded absolutely nothing, it is those like you that don't believe the bible and go running elsewhere because the bible fails you. What is your alleged other evidence, oh, that's right, man made traditions & at very best, hearsay! LOL!
Ahh yes you did evade the question. You made a claim based on the position that if I were to make a statement of faith and belief, it had to be found in the Bible --- therefore you wrote "Can't see where it says " Confess to Priests? ". The onus then is on you to prove that everything taught must be found written in the Bible why is why I asked "Where does it say in the Bible that everything pertaining to the teachings of Christ must be found there in order for it to be recognized or legitimized?."

If you cannot answer this simple question, your point is moot and you have proven nothing. You are simply committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof on to me.
Oh I was told by other trinitarians that they were preaching what was later written down?
I see you dodged this one also!
Again the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof on to me.
Bottom-line is you are ALL jesus' rejects and remain malignant sinners!
jedicri wrote: Your point is still moot. You have not shown or proved anything save being rude and disrespectful.
You failed to confirm to me that you are and remain a sinner, besides claiming to believe in the Story book biblical jesus?
LOL! You are the one making these "claims". The burden of proof is on you to prove what you claim. I do not have to prove anything to you.
We ALL know you are a repeated sinner, because the catholic church tells you and me that you are and you are commanded by your cult leaders (all repeated sinners themselves) to also attend regular confession for those sins.

The bible you ' claim to believe in ' therefore tells you and us, that according to your cult ideology, you simply can NOT therefore be a genuine jesus' believer, but are instead a jesus' reject -
You have proved nothing with these claims of yours --- merely your personal opinion of me --- the fallacy of ad hominem (of whom you do not even know) --- and my faith.
Whoever remains in him has no sin, whoever sins has not seen or known him. (1 John 3:6) Digital catholic bible

ALL you catholics and so called ' bible believers ' that still sin, are thus proven jesus' rejects by your very own bibles!

No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. (1 John 3:6) catholic edition RSV

ALL you catholics and so called ' bible believers ' that still sin, are thus proven jesus' rejects by your very own bibles!

This being the irrefutable case (by the facts you told us you catholics require regular confession for your sins), your other comments denying biblical text with the writings of others; only demonstrates your contempt and denial of what you catholics claim is your god(s) biblical and sacred words!

Thus, it is those like you that have been proved by your rebuttal of biblical text demonstrating your contempt for it and contempt against your own bible text, yet you hypocrytically try to deceive others that it is only non-believers that have a contempt for it, when in fact by your comments, admissions and need for regular confession, it is both of us that do!

Obviously also, the entire prayers of all catholics of all ranks has abismally failed to prevent you and themselves from remaining repeated sinners!

More proof that should this catholic god(s) exist? they have rejected ALL catholic prayers to stop sinning!

OR as I and others believe by historical and personal beliefs and experience, the literal existence of your trinitarian god(s) is a pure figment of your (how does your catholic bible put it?) -

The catholic bible believers heart(mind) is ' deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; . . . . ' (Jer. 17:9) catholic edition RSV Story book

The human mind is more deceitful than anything else. It is incurably bad. . . . . (Jer. 17:9) NET Story book
Wow. No rebuttal with regards to what was written by the early Fathers of the Church huh?
Only ad hominem attacks and unsupportable claims based on personal interpretation of Bible verses.
You have proved nothing...

Composer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Western Australia

Post #23

Post by Composer »

Composer wrote:
1. The bible is a man made Story book and the literal existence of the biblical jesus outside of Story book fairy land = zero!
jedicri wrote: Mere opinion.
So your alleged evidence apart from a Story book bible is what?

So your alleged evidence ANY acclaimed ' holy-text ' is the words of ANY literal god(s) is?
jedicri wrote: You are were the one that made the claim that the Bible is a "man made Story book." The onus is on you to prove your claim.
1. Your posts and those of your predecessors have already proved my claim!

2. IF you are still in doubt, I also remind you that according to your Story book bible, it is encumbent upon those like you so called bible believers to do the proving of your claims to those like me -

all things prove; . . . . (1 Thess. 5:21) YLT (Literal translation) Story book

3. And you are also commanded to - . . . . And [be] ready always for defence to every one who is asking of you an account concerning the hope that [is] in you, with meekness and fear; . . . . (1 Pet. 3:15) YLT Story book

BTW: You are also commanded not to respond with evasive answers!

&

All things, therefore, whatever ye may will that men may be doing to you, so also do to them, for this is the law and the prophets. (Matt. 7:12) YLT Story book

So get going obeying your bible Story book and start proving ANY acclaimed holy-text ' is the words of ANY literal god(s) given to men?

Much much much much much better luck next times!

Image
Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

Composer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Western Australia

Post #24

Post by Composer »

jedicri wrote: Wow. No rebuttal with regards to what was written by the early Fathers of the Church huh?
Only ad hominem attacks and unsupportable claims based on personal interpretation of Bible verses.
You have proved nothing...
For the third time -

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299). (My Bolds)

QED

Much much much better luck on another Topic!

Image
Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #25

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Composer wrote:
jedicri wrote: Wow. No rebuttal with regards to what was written by the early Fathers of the Church huh?
Only ad hominem attacks and unsupportable claims based on personal interpretation of Bible verses.
You have proved nothing...
For the third time -

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299). (My Bolds)

QED

Much much much better luck on another Topic!
When you copied that quote (from this site?) you left out some of the ellipses. Here is what it should have been:
"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established ... into Christian life ... prior to the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html
It is difficult to tell what the “mentality or perspective� referred to really is, or even what the upshot of the entire discussion was with an unknown amount of the intervening text missing. It is well know that the full and final formulation of the Trinity was the subject of centuries of discussion. But to claim that the idea of the Trinity was non-existent before then or not in the scriptures is not accurate. The New Catholic Encyclopedia is not available online. But the original 1914 edition is and here is what is says about the scriptural justification of the Trinity.
To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are all expressly taught in the New Testament. The Divinity of the Three Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count. The unity of essence is not merely postulated by the strict monotheism of men nurtured in the religion of Israel, to whom "subordinate deities" would have been unthinkable; but it is, as we have seen, involved in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:19, and, in regard to the Father and the Son, expressly asserted in John 10:38. That the Persons are co-eternal and coequal is a mere corollary from this. In regard to the Divine processions, the doctrine of the first procession is contained in the very terms Father and Son: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son is taught in the discourse of the Lord reported by St. John (14-17)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#II
This quote is at the end of a long discussion of the New Testament references to the Trinity. If you wish to debate that issue I suggest two things:

One, read the article and develop counter-arguments to the various arguments presented.

Two, go here to debate it.

We might note that the quote you (inaccurately) produced is from a pamphlet originally published by the Christian Millennial Fellowship according to the site linked at the top. This is an offshoot of Jehovah’s Witnesses and as such cannot be said to represent mainstream or original Christianity. Justification for the beliefs they put forth is therefore required beyond just quoting from one of their sites.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

jedicri
Scholar
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:40 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #26

Post by jedicri »

Composer wrote:1. Your posts and those of your predecessors have already proved my claim!

2. IF you are still in doubt, I also remind you that according to your Story book bible, it is encumbent upon those like you so called bible believers to do the proving of your claims to those like me -
May I remind you that you are posting in Catholicism, a place to discuss Catholic topics and issues where we Catholics need not prove anything to you, rather those who are not need to do so.

You came here posting a topic claiming A, B and C --- the onus is on you to prove it.


I've just read ThatGirlAgain's post and I must say that what you've done is intellectually dishonest not to mention your lack of counter-arguments to the points I have made.

All I have read from you are denials and more denials with nary a proof to back your claims, and the use of fallacious arguments of shifting the burden of proof, ad hominem attacks and strawman argumentations. If that is all you have to offer, I'm done with this thread.

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #27

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Much is made in this thread of James 5:16 and the alleged non-involvement of priests in the forgiveness of sins. The immediately preceding verses contradict that allegation.
James 5:14-15

14Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

15And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Douay-Rheims 1899
In John 20, Jesus gives explicit authority to forgive sins to his disciples. It is not a general crowd he addresses but only the few disciples.
John 20:19-23

19Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you.

20And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.

21He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.

22When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

23Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Douay-Rheims 1899
Forgiveness is not automatic. It must be judged according to the individual case. Confessing one’s sins to a crowd gives no opportunity for such judgment. There will not be agreement on what should be forgiven and what not. Nor was any such authority to forgive (or not) given to the crowd but only to the few. Is that authority to disappear when the last disciple is dead? No. Authority was given to an ongoing organization to deal with matters as needed with the backing of divine authority.
Matthew 16:18-19

18And 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.
19And 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.

Douay-Rheims 1899
Confession to priests is scripturally authorized.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

Composer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Western Australia

Post #28

Post by Composer »

Composer wrote:
jedicri wrote: Wow. No rebuttal with regards to what was written by the early Fathers of the Church huh?
Only ad hominem attacks and unsupportable claims based on personal interpretation of Bible verses.
You have proved nothing...
For the third time -

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299). (My Bolds)

QED

Much much much better luck on another Topic!
ThatGirlAgain wrote: When you copied that quote (from this site?) you left out some of the ellipses. Here is what it should have been:
"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established ... into Christian life ... prior to the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html
The two quotes appear to be virtually identical so why your accusation that I allegedly ' left out some elipses ' as you put it?

Image
Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #29

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Composer wrote:
jedicri wrote: Wow. No rebuttal with regards to what was written by the early Fathers of the Church huh?
Only ad hominem attacks and unsupportable claims based on personal interpretation of Bible verses.
You have proved nothing...
For the third time -

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299). (My Bolds)

QED

Much much much better luck on another Topic!
ThatGirlAgain wrote: When you copied that quote (from this site?) you left out some of the ellipses. Here is what it should have been:
"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established ... into Christian life ... prior to the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html
The two quotes appear to be virtually identical so why your accusation that I allegedly ' left out some ellipses ' as you put it?

Image
Because you left out two ellipses. There were things omitted in the quote as it appears on the site I referenced, represented by the two "..." in my post. Your representation of this quote leaves out those ellipses making it seem as if it is a continuous sentence when it is not. What exactly has been left out of the original text in the New Catholic Encyclopedia and how might it alter the meaning?
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

Composer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Western Australia

Post #30

Post by Composer »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Composer wrote:
jedicri wrote: Wow. No rebuttal with regards to what was written by the early Fathers of the Church huh?
Only ad hominem attacks and unsupportable claims based on personal interpretation of Bible verses.
You have proved nothing...
For the third time -

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299). (My Bolds)

QED

Much much much better luck on another Topic!
ThatGirlAgain wrote: When you copied that quote (from this site?) you left out some of the ellipses. Here is what it should have been:
"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established ... into Christian life ... prior to the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html
The two quotes appear to be virtually identical so why your accusation that I allegedly ' left out some ellipses ' as you put it?

Image
Because you left out two ellipses. There were things omitted in the quote as it appears on the site I referenced, represented by the two "..." in my post. Your representation of this quote leaves out those ellipses making it seem as if it is a continuous sentence when it is not. What exactly has been left out of the original text in the New Catholic Encyclopedia and how might it alter the meaning?
The two quotes i.e. yours and mine are virtually identical except for my emphasis in RED.

You were in error to claim otherwise and still are!

Image
Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

Post Reply