'Catholic Spring' uprising prediction for Ireland over dissenting priest Father Flannery

There will always be weak interpretations of Scripture for a variety of reasons and agendas but again this exists within the RC church as much as within any of the Protestant denominations you refer to because it's clear from reading any amount of the comments expressed within this article and from talking to RC people that they don't believe half of the official doctrines and so that might explain the nominal character of most Roman Catholics and their faith. Putting the authority back into Scripture where it always should have been however prevents this from happening and points everyone through its truths to the need for a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ

But when God's Word is placed in its correct role then this means that all doctrine and church teaching will come from it and by having it as our final authority, it means that we are accepting that it contains all teaching necessary for salvation. This isn't a case of Protestant versus Roman Catholic essentially, it's a case of letting the Bible speak through the Holy Spirit.

The definition of 'Church' within the New Testament is the people of God and not an institutional body, and that includes the RC church and all other denominations. The Church comprises of all believers everywhere and it is this that the gates of hell will not prevail against. You mention that the RC church has always felt that it is not an option to pick and choose from scripture but all over the years the RC church has, although retaining reverence for the Bible, added the teachings of tradition to the eternal truths contained within the Bible, thus meaning the Bibles's teachings are never it's final authority and subsequently meaning that the RC church will always be able to manoeuvre on its doctrine and teaching through man-authorised concepts such as church councils and papal infallibility to name but a couple.

Hi Marsaili, respectfully this is where yourself and I completely diverge on this issue in that case. As I've said, the John 20 account being read out of context has been used to justify the creation of another sacrament when this was never necessary. Christ's death on the cross does expiate for all sins past, present and future but that doesn't mean we don't need to repent and confess our sins before God through Christ. But the need for a human priest is simply not there. Catholic priests are not direct successors to the apostles, that simply is without scriptural support and again is founded more so on tradition than any scriptural reference.

Fr. Flannery knew the danger of writing about a non-traditional priesthood: "but the Vatican is increasingly forbidding any discussion on that.” However, he drew courage from knowing the difference between dogma or settled doctrine, on the one hand, and customs or traditions that can and do change, on the other hand. By contrast, some people posting here seem to regard every word coming from the Vatican as infallible. Nonsense! Very few words from popes have had the stamp of infallibility, and not many are even "doctrine." Fr. Flannery is as much a part of the teaching Magisterium as the pope is. In demanding silence on the idea of non-celibate or female priests, the pope knows that he is driving out of the Church the Catholics who can and do think about moral issues. Or, as John Allen concluded a year ago, writing in NCRonline about Pew Research on the huge exodus from RC, "Thus, both as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic. We are losing the best, not the worst." The worst are those who have such a desperate need for someone "in authority" to do their thinking for them that they actually defend the Vatican's despicable censorship, along with the corrupt power politics of the US bishops and the appalling silence of the Irish bishops.

Hi alkil, you are correct that there is but one mediator between man and God - that is our Lord Jesus Christ. And yet, Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself told His apostles that what sins they forgive are then forgiven. If Christ's passion and death on the Cross were meant to expiate for all sins, including all future sins that any Christian could ever possibly commit, then there would be no need for Our Lord to tell the apostles this. All Catholic priests (and yes, even the bad ones) are direct successors to the original apostles. Our Lord told his apostles that He would be with them until the end of the world, and also that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. He told the apostles to go out to all nations to teach ALL that He had taught, and this is what His Church has always strived to do, even though humans within the Church have been weak, negligent, and sinful at times in doing so. The Church has always felt that it is not an option to pick and choose, from scripture, what we want to believe; rather it takes all of scripture (and tradition) into account. As a former Protestant myself, I am familiar with the practice of private interpretation of scripture, since I used to do that myself. And yet with so many Protestant denominatons, there are as many different interpretations...but there can be only one proper interpretation. And as truth does not change, and human nature has not changed, the Church is ever only teaching what it has always taught, though certain things are sometimes clarified in a new manner of course.

Thus in the John 20 account Jesus was again directing His apostles as to the means by which a person can find forgiveness, not instructing or empowering them themselves to forgive or withhold forgiveness. I hope this finds you well and once again makes sense to you :)

There remains somewhat of a problem however concerning church tradition within the RC church because I can fully empathise that it is extremely difficult for someone like yourself who is trying to be a 'faithful' follower of that church to go against it's teaching on this issue. But I fully believe that the Bible teaches that there is 'only one mediator between man and God' - that is our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5).

Our confession should be a private affair in prayer to God. This is how Christ in effect supercedes the Old Testament sacrificial system in that once only the High Priest of Israel could offer sacrifices i.e lambs etc for the sins of God's people but NOW Christ being 'the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world' has superceded this requirement and we can go directly to God. Christ is our great high priest as I say. The letter to the Hebrews describes much better Christ's priestly function particularly chap 3:1-6 and chap 4:14-16 if you'd like a wee read.

This I can't reconcile to the Scriptures. Christ died and rose again for the sins of those who would believe and He is our Great High Priest interceding all our prayers to God being seated at God's right hand in heaven. Jesus on earth was God incarnate which was the statement He was trying to make and demonstrate to the Scribes etc when he told the paralytic that his sins were forgiven. Now since Jesus' death on the cross tore down the barrier between sinners and God, hence the imagery of the temple curtain being torn, this means that we can go directly to God through Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

The need for repentance or penance is always there for obviously someone before they come to know Christ but also for the Christian who must continually bring His sins before God in obedience. Christ is the only means of reconciling sinners to God as you rightly say. I guess where I have misgivings about the teachings of the RC church on this particular issue is where it was felt necessary to create another sacrament for this purpose and the church has thus turned the act of forgiving sins into some sort of process with a human priest.

Hi Marsaili, I really didn’t mean for this comment to be so long but as it is it’s had to be posted as a number of parts. I've really enjoyed reading your last comment and Fr Duffner's explanation. It would appear to me that in terms of the need to 'apply to people the fruits won by His passion and death' then what we both appear to be saying are quite similar things.

Sorry Marsaili but I have been trying to reply to you for a while now but comments aren't posting!

Hi alkil29, I think I understand your interpretation of this paticulat part of scripture. I'll quote Fr. Paul Duffner, O.P., since he gives a much better explanation than I can regarding this issue: "Christ comes through the medium of the external sacramental rites of the Church, to act personally with His hidden power to apply to souls the fruits won by His passion and death. In this sacrament of Penance, then, Christ perpetuates, through His Church, His work of reconciling sinners with God by remitting their sins." "All through His public ministry, the message of our Blessed Lord was one of repentance: "Unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish.(Luke 13:5). Only God can forgive sin. When our Lord said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven you," the Scribes were murmuring among themselves, "Who can forgive sin, but only God?" (Mk 2:5). They were correct in their statement that only God can forgive sin, even though Christ said to His apostles, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them." He conferred on them the power to forgive sin, but to forgive sin In His Name. In this sacrament, Christ operates through the priest pronouncing the words of absolution." So Christ's passion is the cause for the forgivenss of sins, but it has to be applied to individuals for the purpose of cleansing persoanl sins, firstly by baptism, and then penance, and other sacraments, which obtain their power from Christ's passion. Hope this makes sense.

Hi Marsaili, Thanks for your considerate reply. I was actually aware of this teaching within the Roman Catholic church. However my interpretation of these verses aren't so much that Jesus was giving the Apostles the responsibility to forgive or to not forgive sins but to point people to the one who by His sacrifice has done everything necessary for the forgiveness of those sins. I can see how these particular verses have brought about the sacrament of penance but to say that Jesus was giving his apostles the power to do this and subsequently all priests in the future I believe is inaccurate. Now obviously the sacrament of penance has been formed and this is official Roman Catholic teaching and it wouldn't be my intention to cause offence to any practicing Roman Catholic save to say that only God can forgive sins and this was what God incarnate, Jesus Christ, was putting across in these verses. Sin is what separates us from God but Jesus through his death and resurrection defeated sin once and for all. Does this make any sense to you or do you find that you simply could never agree with my interpretation?