Can A Priest Absolve Sins?

A couple weeks ago this happened near my hometown:

Eventually they found the mystery priest (aptly named Father Dowling):

There is one statement from Dowling’s interview that I want to address today; namely, his claim to have been given the power to absolve this young lady of her sins.

Where does such power come from?

How in the world is a priest given the power to absolve sin? I thought only Jesus could forgive sins. Do you get bitten by a radioactive spider? Do you put on a black shirt and a collar, and declare yourself a sin-forgiver? Does this belief actually come from the Bible?

If you ask a Roman Catholic priest he will say that the power to absolve sin was given to the apostles (and their successors) in John 20:23. Here we read Jesus saying,

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

The Catholic prayer of absolution is based on this passage. A Catholic priest does not believe that he, in and of himself, has the power to forgive sins. It is a power that has been granted to him as a priest. He is a representative of the forgiven Christ. Christ alone forgives sin. But as he now reigns from heaven he does so through His Spirit working through His servants (priests).

Therefore, when a priest declares you forgiven you are indeed forgiven. You can have certainty because Christ has given His power (through the sacrament of penance) to His representatives.

A Protestant Response

I am not convinced by the Catholic interpretation of John 20:23. In order to accept this interpretation one would also have to accept the doctrine of apostolic succession. Because I believe in the priesthood of all believers I would have to say that the power to absolve sin (or to withhold forgiveness) was in the power of every believer, and that is not something that I find in the Scriptures.

Secondly, there is an assumption behind such a prayer. That assumption is that our sins are not all forgiven upon the moment of justification. Catholic doctrine denies that at the moment of conversion we are forgiven all sins: past, present, and future. This seems to me to deny our union with Christ. When Christ “canceled the record of debt” that stood against believers our sins were future. And yet they are forgiven. This because of our union with Christ—all that He has accomplished is given to us. Therefore, you and I do not need a priest to do for us what Christ has already done.

Which leads me to ask where is faith? Where is the gospel? Nowhere in Acts do I see the apostles doing anything similar to the Catholic practice of absolution of sins. They are not praying over people and saying, “your sins are forgiven”. They are doing the same thing that Jesus did—proclaiming the coming kingdom and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”. Upon reception of the gospel through faith then you might read something about declaring people forgiven.

Therefore, the rest of the Scriptures cause me to be unable to accept the Catholic interpretation of John 20:23.

So what is John 20:23 saying?

As I go about answering that question I want to be careful not to read the practice of absolution (either pro or con) into the text. This text really speaks to our union with Christ. It is here that we (the Bride of Christ) are empowered. It’s not mechanical, it’s not removed from the person of Christ or the work of the Spirit.

It’s not as if we go about proclaiming forgiveness apart from faith in the risen Christ. No, this is proclaiming the risen Christ. And when someone comes to know Christ the church through baptism and membership declares (not mechanically) that “their sins are forgiven”.

You can see the difference in the way that a Protestant and a Catholic discuss the Scriptures. You ask, “How do you know that the gospel of Mark is Scripture?”

Catholic: The Gospel of Mark is Scripture because the Church has declared it so.
Protestant: The Gospel of Mark is Scripture, therefore the Church declared it so.

There is a world of difference between the two.

Now to our question at hand. How do you I know that my sins are forgiven?

Catholic: My sin is forgiven because the Church has declared it so.
Protestant: My sin is forgiven, therefore the Church has declared it so.

I believe this is backed up by the past tense of “they are forgiven” and “it is withheld”. Those are past action with continuing results. Jesus is not telling us here to go about forgiving sins or to withhold forgiveness. Jesus is commissioning us to go and proclaim the gospel and to do so with the confidence that He is with us, working through us, and still shepherding His church from heaven.

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…run to him.

Why I Don’t Make the Sign of the Cross OR How to Think Through Early Church Practices

The sign of the cross is “a ritual blessing made by members of many branches of Christianity. This blessing is made by the tracing of an upright cross or + across the body with the right hand, often accompanied by spoken or mental recitation of the Trinitarian formula.”

This practice at least goes back as early as Tertullian (160-220) who said:

"In all our travels and movements, in all our coming in and going out, in putting off our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupies us, we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross."

Because this is such an early practice it really causes me to wonder whether or not we ought to follow suit and do what these early Christians obviously practiced. As I read through early church history there are many such practices that can, at times, be unsettling.

A person in the second century lived closer to Jesus than I do. And they lived closer to the apostles—some of them even disciples of the apostles. I’ve had to give some thought to how I think through early church practices. When I come across one of these practices I ask a couple of questions.

1. Does it directly contradict Scripture? Is it expressly commanded in Scripture?

Just because somebody lived in the 3rd century it doesn’t mean that he has to be right. Even the apostle Peter abandoned the teaching of Jesus when he hypocritically refused to eat with Gentiles. That means that anybody who isn’t the incarnate Son of God is fair game for questioning. And we question ourselves and history according to the Scriptures. (In fact if the claims of Christ were held up “according to the Scriptures”).

If a practice contradicts Scripture then I had better avoid it no matter what tradition says. On the other hand if something is expressly commanded in Scripture (and not merely descriptive) then I had better be sure to practice it.

2. How does it translate into today?

There is a reason why I don’t encourage the women in our church to wear head-coverings. It’s not because I believe what Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 11 has no meaning. It is because I believe the symbol of head-coverings has lost the meaning that Paul wanted to highlight. Therefore, it’s pointless to make a stink about the shadow if the substance is retained in something else.

So if I see an early church practice I’m left to wonder whether it has that same meaning/symbolism in our day. If it doesn’t can that be recovered? Would it require a ridiculous amount of teaching to recover a 2,000 year old practice? Is there really a point in doing that—especially if it’s not something commanded in Scripture?

Also under this question I ask myself whether or not this practice would cause others to stumble. Is it possible that this practice is something that is associated with a former life that would cause my brother or sister to stumble?

What about the sign of the cross?

On my first question, I do not believe that it directly contradicts any Scripture. Unless you want argue that somehow the sign of the cross confers grace upon someone, then we’ve got a problem with sacramentalism. I also believe that it is not directly taught in Scripture. (I’m not persuaded by the instances in Revelation of marking the forehead with the sign).

Based upon this I’m not going to throw a massive stink if someone is using the sign of the cross as mnemonic tool to remind them of the Trinity, Christ, and His gospel. But am I going to do it myself?

No.

That is because it doesn’t pass my second test. I believe that the practice has become superstitious for many. Most of those that I’ve asked about doing the sign of the cross (which is a small sample size) have not really known what it means. “It’s just something we do”.

For most people in my Southern Baptist congregation making the sign of the cross is a “Catholic thing”. We live in a very Roman Catholic community. One in which people are brought up in the church but many do not have a vital relationship with Jesus*. When they truly come to know Christ they associate things like “the sign of the cross” with their former way of life—which to them was nothing more than superstitious idolatry. For me as a pastor to make the sign of the cross it would, I believe, cause them to stumble.

Therefore, I do not make the sign of the cross, but I don’t make a stink about those that do it—especially if they actually know what it means.

My major point in this article is actually not about making the sign of the cross but only to use that as an example of how I think through early church practices. I believe this is a grid by which we can decide whether or not an early church practice ought to be adopted in our congregations.

--

I’m not saying that a Roman Catholic cannot be saved. My answer to that question is similar to that of Doug Wilson.