That is completely false.
1. Apostolic authority was limited to the twelve apostles. No one after that. And when Jesus spoke about them forgiving sins, it was in a very specific context. They had the authority to address sins within the churches (as shown by Paul), but the "forgiveness" they offered was not the same as what God does. Since only God can forgive sins, they asked other Christians to forgive the person who had sinned and restore him to fellowship.
2. As to confessing sins to the elders (presbyters), the word in James as found in the Received Text is "faults". And that is a different Greek word than that which says "sins". the modern versions corrupted that passage to accommodate the Catholic church.
3. By no stretch of the imagination can a Catholic priest have the authority to grant "absolution" -- the forgiveness of sins. First of all the entire Catholic concept fo the priesthood is false. Secondly, the RCC gives its priest powers and authority which not even the apostles had. Thirdly the whole concept of a human priest offering an "actual" sacrifice at the Mass is blasphemous. The OT priests sacrificed actual animals and shed their blood. The Catholic priest is supposed to imagine that a bloodless wafer represents Christ. And that too in the face of the fact that Christ offered ONE sacrifice for sins forever.
1.) So you say, and yet Matthias is chosen to succeed Judas in Acts 1: "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, 'May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and ‘Let another take his office’" (v. 20). What is more, we need to look at the earliest Christian praxis on this matter: “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (
Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
What is more, you say they merely had the authority to "address sins within the churches." What on earth does that even mean? In a sense I could agree with that I suppose because the way they addressed those sins was by denouncing them and forgiving them as stated in Jn. 20:23 & Mat. 18:18. God is the one who takes sins away, the Apostles cannot do that but they can forgive them on behalf of God or let them remain if the person is not truly repentant (Jn. 20:23).
2.) This point was utterly amazing to me because the Greek word that is used is "ἁμαρτία." That is the Greek term for "sin." So, you're simply incorrect about that, but I would also argue that the word, "fault," is a synonym for "sin."
3.) It's not false. Actually, if you look into the etymology of the word, "priest," you will realize that it is derived from the Greek word, "presbyteros." Again, looking at Scripture, e.g., James 5 which says to call the priests to heal the sick and to forgive sins, but also, the earliest Christian praxis, St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: “Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (
Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]). We see the three-fold office of the clergy made present here in the late 1st to early 2nd Centuries. I mean, even the names of these priests are given (Bassus & Apollonius)!
Secondly, the Apostles had more authority than the priests of today do. So, I'm not sure where you're getting that from since the Deposit of Faith came from them.
Thirdly, you hit the nail on the head by stating that Jesus' sacrifice is forever. This eternal sacrifice is such a powerful sacrifice that it can be re-presented daily upon the altar in churches everywhere. Jesus is not dying again, nor is He suffering again, and so, this in no way contradicts Hebrews 9 but rather complements it perfectly. What is more, the fact that St. Paul uses the language of sacrifice when discussing the sacrilege taking place in 1 Cor. 10. Notice the context of sacrifice in 1 Cor. 10:16-21 and the interchangeable use of the terms "altar" and "table?"
Lastly, we are saying that the consecrated bread and wine is in fact the Body & Blood of Christ. If it's merely a symbolic gesture, then why are people becoming sick, infirm, and even dying from not drinking and eating of the Eucharist properly in 1 Cor. 11:27-32?
1
