Someone writes:
Why do we know that John 20:23–forgiving sins–pertains only to the apostles and their successors, but other things like the commandment to proclaim the gospel to al the world applies to lay people as well?
BACKGROUND ON JOHN’S GOSPEL
John’s Gospel avoids the term “apostle(s).” This term never appears in John. Instead, he refers on a few occasions to “the Twelve.” However, his preferred term for Jesus’ close circle of followers is “the disciple(s).” This appears over and over again, and it is clearly his favorite designation for people who have close ties with Jesus.
It also is the author’s preferred designation for himself: He is “the disciple” Jesus loved, not “the apostle” Jesus loved.
There is a significant case to be made that the author of the Gospel is not John son of Zebedee (i.e., not John the Apostle) but a different eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry known as John the Presbyter/Elder, who is discussed by some early Church Fathers and who apparently was a member of the Jerusalem aristocracy.
(Note that the beloved disciple is personally known to the high priest *and* his household staff–John 19:15-16–so he’s been to the house multiple times, enabling him to be recognized at night by the staff, and it took his intercession to get Peter admitted to the high priest’s courtyard; it is quite unlikely that an uneducated Galilean fisherman [Acts 4:13] would have this kind of relationship with the high priest; I may write more about the John the Presbyter theory; it’s been a special study of mine for awhile).
If this theory is true, it would explain John’s clear preference for the term “disciple” over “apostle.” The author is not an apostle or a member of the Twelve, but he is a disciple–a close follower of Jesus and an eyewitness to his ministry.
He thus frames his Gospel in a way that focuses on his qualifications as an author–he’s an eyewitness and a very close disciple of Jesus–rather than on factors that would cut against his qualifications (he’s not an apostle or a member of the Twelve).
INTERPRETING JOHN 20:23
As you’d expect, given the above, it is “the disciples” who are present when Jesus institutes the sacrament of confession (John 20:20).
Because of the ambiguity of the term, it could be understood as applying only to the Twelve or to the Twelve plus other core disciples, mirroring the fact that the minister of the sacrament is not only a bishop but also priests. (On this view, John the Elder may have regarded himself as a presbuteros/presbyter/priest, especially in view of his later activity in the Church–and also the fact he was present when Christ instituted the Eucharist and commissioned the first priests. In fact, he was the host of the dinner, as illustrated by his position at Jesus’ side.)
John 20:23 thus may provide even more direct support for the exercise of the sacrament by priests (rather than just bishops) than might first appear.
Whatever one makes of the exegesis of John 20:23 on its own terms, the early Church clearly associated the exercise of this sacrament with the episcopacy and priesthood. Ordinary believers could not absolve sins. They might be present at the absolution, if it was done in a public church service, but they themselves could not perform it.
The presumed logic behind this would be that a decision involving spiritual discernment had to be made. Jesus did not only give the ability to forgive sins but also the ability to retain sins. Therefore, discernment is called for: Are the person’s sins to be forgiven or retained? Is he genuinely repentant of them? (And, in an early Church context, has he done his assigned penance? And how much penance should he be assigned?)
These decisions fall naturally to the clergy, who have the spiritual expertise, endowment, and authority to make such determinations in a way the laity don’t.
It is clear that Jesus wanted certain functions in his Church reserved to its appointed ministers–otherwise, Jesus would not have instituted a hierarchy in his Church, which he did by appointing the Twelve–and in light of that decision, the faithful in the early Church had to ask themselves which functions were appropriately reserved to its ministers.
The Holy Spirit led them to recognize that the functions associated with the sacrament of confession were among these, and so it is partly by Tradition that we know this to be the case.
This Tradition was then declared infallibly when the Council of Trent defined that the minister of confession is a priest (Canons on Penance, can. 10).
THE EVANGELIZATION MANDATE
Properly speaking, the mandate of evangelization also falls on the clergy in a way that it does not fall on the laity.
Thus, Christ gives the Great Commission to “the Twelve” (Matt. 18:16; well, “the Eleven,” since Judas has killed himself).
However, it was made clear from the text of the New Testament that sharing the faith was something all Christians could and should–to the extent their skills and circumstances allowed–participate in. Thus, both Paul’s and Peter’s letters encourage ordinary Christians to act in ways that will win people to Christ and to be prepared to discuss their faith with outsiders.
We thus have explicit biblical mandate for evangelistic activity on the part of the laity as well as the clergy.
The Tradition has also emphasized this.
CONCLUSION
Scripture provides explicit support for both laity and clergy evangelizing, but it does not do the same thing for administering the sacrament of confession.
The Holy Spirit led the Church in a way that clarified the minister of that sacrament, and the clarification is manifest in Tradition.
This Tradition was then infallibly taught at Trent.
The presumed basis is the fittingness of having the clergy make the kind of decisions involving discernment that this sacrament requires, given the stakes involved (forgiveness vs. non-forgiveness).
If you’d like a modern, everyday parallel: Everybody at a car dealership can encourage you to buy a car (i.e., evangelize for the business), but only certain people are trusted to do the sensitive paperwork in making the actual transaction (i.e., the finance guys).
It makes sense in an organization for everyone to encourage its overall goals but to reserve its more sensitive functions to specially qualified individuals.
