Can priests absolve you without you confessing?

1 Timothy 2:5 KJV — For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

No. You need to confess every sin.
How do you expect someone to forgive you if you don't accuse yourself?
When asking forgiveness to a king who must say what you did wrong.
Your sins cannot be worse than mine, so go ahead like I did. Besides the priest has heard worse and he is forbidden to ask you why or judge even if you say you used to be a faggot who sucked 200 dicks forgive the vulgarity.
Sometimes I wished pic related so true so much. But the way to God is never easy

John 20:22-23 KJV - And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
James 5:16 KJV Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Can you believe there is no contradiction between 1 Timothy 2:5 and John 20:21-23?
There's not even any contradiction between Timothy 2:5 and James 5:14-15!

Therefore there is no contradiction between 1 Timothy 2:5 and this situation, either. I believe that Protestants contradict James 5:14-15 all the day though, which is worrying.

I don't think that's legitimate in Catholicism because the minister of the sacrament of penance is the priest of the Bishop only.
There could be a case for example if the priest was deaf and someone had to translate the stuff to him, but in this case I don't think he would have the permission of the Bishop to "hear" confession unless it was an emergency (imminent death, all the eccleasiastic prohibitions are instantly lifted).
Either way those persons as well as the priest would be under the vow of confidentiality under the penalty of excommunication and grievous temporal penalties.

That is if the priest opened his mouth which I can count with my hands the times that happened in the last 2000 years.

Attached: Screenshot_20190203-133804_Got Questions.jpg (2091x1221, 1.03M)

Meant for

Not gonna even discuss every point of your pic but whoever wrote it knows much about Catholicism as I know about liberal arts.
The apostles don't possess the power to forgive sins, they forgive them in the name of Christ. It's Christ that forgives sins, as the pharisees well said only God forgives sins.

A proof of that is that if one is not truly regret it doesn't matter how many times one goes to confession and the priests forgives him. He commits sacrilege because God knows he isn't truly sorry and therefore He doesn't forgive him.

Direct contradiction
"The apostles don't forgive sins"
"They (the apostles) forgive them"

The second sentence is the correct RCC teaching, consistent with the phrasing of the article shared
Priests forgive sins in the name of Christ

Priests can but only in emergency circumstances. I'm not certain whether that would qualify, I believe it is to be observed strictly.

...

The Church says that in cases where validity is not certain, the Church protects the layman who didn't know any better. So if you believed that that absolution was valid, the Church provided the faculties and it was valid. But generally this kind of absolution is given only in emergency situations.

Begome Luderan.

Attached: f05.jpg (700x714, 36.9K)

Thanks for correcting me brother.
What you said is what I mean in the first place.

I assume you are referring to the indulgences?
Then the pic should say
There should be a footnote saying

I’m op (my ip reset). I have another question for the Catholics in the audience: I am planning on going to their actual confession time this Saturday. Should I confess the sins that I was (maybe/maybe not) absolved of today? Assuming I don’t do them again between today and next Sunday. I recognize how serious they are, but I just don’t fully understand the faiths stance on this specific confession situation

I would. It can't hurt and it'll set your mind at ease over whether that was a valid absolution or not.

Confess All your sins than sin no more.

Let me explain it like this: if you confessed to an ex Catholic priest who became a heretic but you didn't know he was a heretic, the Church says your confession was valid because you didn't know any better and the Church automatically provided that priest with faculties for a valid absolution. Also, in cases of doubtful validity of sacraments, the Church always presumes validity.
I personally think you should nevertheless confess the sins before that impromptu absolution just to be 100% sure.

You must confess them entirely and I assume that your priest absolved you in good faith. I think that if you were shot now you would go to heaven (provided you didn't sin mortality in the meantime)
There are certain situations where a general absolution is given.
Imagine the following situation.

During the bombing of a city people are hidden in an air strike shelter.
Its very likely that they will die in moments and some of them are worried because they didn't have time to confess their sins.
Well there's a priest with them but there's no time to go do confession.
What the priest does is giving an general absolution to everyone there, and if they really wanted to confess their sins they would go to heaven.
Luckily Joe survived the attack and since he is alive and he desired to go to confession before he now goes to the nearest Catholic Church and goes to confession.

So Tldr you need to tell everything to the priest.
What your priest did was some kind of Abuse but I assume he did it in good faith, or probably wasn't really an absoluting or just a blessing, I don't known what he said specifically.

Just go there user. The sooner the best.

Having been to confession before many times, I can tell you that he did give me the regular confessional absolution (I even decided to google it again to make sure, and the text was what I remember).
The exact dialogue of the conversation was what I posted in the greentext (plus the absolution prayer)
I think (based on his facial expressions at the time) he understood what I meant by "I should be going here" to mean I'd been skipping church, so I think if we were to be 100% legalists on the issue we could say that I had only confessed the church skipping and hadn't confessed my other sins, but on the other hand the absolution doesn't say "I absolve you from one specific sin and no others" it says "I absolve you from your sins." So I'm not 100% sure if I had a valid absolution this morning but I'm kinda leaning towards yes, but also I should definitely do a proper confession asap (which in my case is this tuesday)
Let's hope a safe doesn't fall on me tomorrow, I'd hate to be wrong

If you died you'd probably go to heaven.
All was done in good faith and you want to go to regular confession.

Imagine putting your eternal security in a theology that says "probably"

...

You mean the apostle Paul who wrote these?
Romans 10:13 KJV — For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Ephesians 2:8 KJV — For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
1 Corinthians 15:1-2 KJV — Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

This, as far as I know the only time priests is supposed to do something like this is in dire circumstances, like someone trying to repent while dying. Not to say that this rule is strictly observed (as we can see here).
Since you went to the effort of going before a priest to confess, God's certainly forgiven you of your sins. But since you're worried about it, I would suggest confessing your earlier sins just to get them off your mind. God won't hold it against you.

Then either he is contradicting himself or your view is wrong.
Also believing in Jesus but not doing what he ordered is worth shit. It isn't even belief.

proof-reading leads to error, not Truth

St. Paul told us to approach salvation with fear and trembling, in another place, as a foot-race. I'm sure the exact same guy I've encountered in the other thread.

Why does this comic have Jesus quoting Paul? What did Jesus actually say?

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Hmmm…Sounds like works to me?

Attached: Thinking_Face_Emoji_grande.png (600x600, 143.37K)

Lukewarm trash.
Your priest is as close to virtue as a stone is dry at the bottom of the sea.

How do you reconcile your view with Ephesians 2:8-9

Bad theology will send you to hell.

Soteriology*

Having no common sense will take you wherever you'll lead yourself to and no missinterpreting theology and condeming those you have no right to condemn will save you from God's justice.

It means you can't earn your salvation through works. They're still essential though. Your works show whether or not you have a true faith, if you have works then God may see fit to bestow upon you the grace necessary for salvation, if you don't then he'll withold the grace. Either way you didn't earn the grace through your works your works are merely a sign of your faith in Christ.

1. You cannot merit salvation by works

2. Works are still necessary to receive the grace necessary for salvation, the fact you can't earn it doesn't mean they're not important

2 is a direct contradiction

OK lol then explain how do you understand the quote of the other user

Don’t overthink this comic. It’s a parody of an atheist comic, not a legit Christian tract. Pic related is the original

Attached: B98EEDA5-FDC1-454F-BB5E-88E14BDF2307.jpeg (577x574, 152.73K)

And a weak one at that, ugh…

Nice joke Satan.
Sincerely I don't know twhy atheists think faggotry is normal. I mean I thought they liked science.

The quote of who?
The scripture here?

The passage gives a picture of the righteous talking with the son and he affirms their actions. Where does he say their status as righteous is because of the action?

Sola fide is the only consistent position with Ephesians 2.

There other are there talking with the King. They know him and are quite surprised about being judged. Anyway there are tons of other passages.
Matthew 7:24-27
Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock. And every one that heareth these my words and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.

Matthew 25:1-13
“Then the kingdom of heaven shall be like ten virgins, who, taking their lamps, went out to meet the groom and the bride. But five of them were foolish, and five were prudent. For the five foolish, having brought their lamps, did not take oil with them. Yet truly, the prudent ones brought the oil, in their containers, with the lamps. Since the bridegroom was delayed, they all fell asleep, and they were sleeping. But in the middle of the night, a cry went out: ‘Behold, the groom is arriving. Go out to meet him.’ Then all those virgins rose up and trimmed their lamps. But the foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give to us from your oil, for our lamps are being extinguished.’ The prudent responded by saying, ‘Lest perhaps there may not be enough for us and for you, it would be better for you to go to the vendors and buy some for yourselves.’ But while they were going to buy it, the groom arrived. And those who were prepared entered with him to the wedding, and the door was closed. Yet truly, at the very end, the remaining virgins also arrived, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open to us.’ But he responded by saying, ‘Amen I say to you, I do not know you.’ And so you must be vigilant, because you do not know the day or the hour.

Salvation isn't one time event then, it's a journey and we must always have oil in our lamp.

And basically msot of Jesus parables like the one about lazarus and the rich man.
Then you are lying. Because you and everyone even with faith we have temptations and frequently we fall into them. Of course you guys when such thing happens claim after all I wasn't saved, now I am lol.

I don't see why you prots have such a thing for this verse. It completely confirms the Catholic doctrine of Justification which isn't like your pastor told you. Google it before making a fool out of yourself. Muh work salvation meme.

No it isn't. You just don't understand that while you can't earn grace through works you still need to do works to be worthy of having grace bestowed on you.

Think of it like this, you're hired to clean a house and the owner has 1 million dollars to give you. There is nothing you can do in a day to earn that million dollars, house cleaning just isn't that valuable, your work doesn't obligate the owner to hand over the million. However if you do a good job then the owner might decide to be charitable and give you the million anyway, you didn't earn it, it was a gift based on your good work.

On the other hand if you don't do anything at all then the owner might decide to withhold his million.

The thing to understand that just because Gods grace is given based on how you act doesn't mean it is "earned". You can't earn grace through works because it's far too precious and nothing you can ever do will mean God is obligated to bestow it on you. It's always a gift and always given because God wills it, not because God is obligated to give it to you because of some contract where you accrued enough good boy points. That doesn't mean your actions are entirely irrelevant however, how you conduct yourself is directly relevant to whether God chooses to bestow the unmerited grace upon you or not. You might not be able to earn grace, but you can certainly be found unworthy of it and that's why Jesus says he will reject people who were believers because they didn't fulfill his wishes.

Yes, it's a contradiction

I was looking at biblehub.com/bsb/2_peter/1.htm and I was going to quote something but you know what? Just read the whole thing, its good for you.

The issue is Paul addressing is people believing that God is obligated to save them because of their works. He's warning against believing that salvation is a transaction where you do good things and in return God must reward you. Salvation is not a transaction you make with God nor is it a contract. God will bestow his grace on anyone who makes an earnest effort to follow Christs example and teachings, but you didn't earn that grace, you got gifted it completely out of Gods goodwill and love for you.

The point Paul is trying to make is that Christian life is not a LARP where you try to accumulate enough XP from good works to be accepted into Gods kingdom. Nobody is deserving of Gods grace but he chooses to bless some individuals with it anyway based on whether they truly accept and know him through the teachings of the Son, Jesus Christ. Works are a tangible indicator of your faith and acceptance of Christ, without them your "faith" is just hot air.

This is the interpretation that best matches what we see in the scriptures. Jesus makes it very clear that he will either accept or reject his followers based on their actions in life. James says that faith without works is dead (i.e not a saving faith). Paul says that it is faith in God that saves, not the works themselves. All of these facts are reconciled in the above view that:

1. Grace is never merited, it is a gift given by God because of his love for humanity

2. Without works there is no such thing as a saving faith

3. Christ will reject some of his supposed followers based on the fact their actions did not show them to be true followers of Him in life.

Yes!
No!

I think you're just being loose in your wording. Do you affirm sola fide?

youtube.com/watch?v=QICKUkEj5WM
tl;dr I think his absolution was valid, but not licit.
Watch this pronto.

also

Imagine thinking that you will ever know your eternal security for sure. Or that of anyone else. Much less due to any deeds or lack of them.

Christians hope for salvation; for that, they place their trust in their Lord, ask for His grace, and so on.

To anyone who thinks that prots and catholics disagree on _that_ much:

This joint declaration by the Catholic Church and some Lutherans might illustrate how the two denominations agree on surprisingly a lot:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

(read the text itself for specific points and comparisons)