HOME | DD

Description
June 25 2011

I'm sitting here processing some answers to questions my friend asked me a few days ago in regards to the Catholic faith.  The two hinge questions I can remember, I address here.

"Why do you go to confession?  Why tell another person what you're doing wrong when it's just between you and God?"

Jesus wasn't just founding the Church and Faith when he told Peter "I name you Kepha, and on this kepha (rock) I build my church" and "What you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and what you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven".  Right there, he labeled Peter as the very first priest of the Catholic faith and gave him the power to loose or bind our sins both here on Earth and simultaneously before the throne of God in Heaven before which we will be judged for those sins.  From this authority of Peter, the papacy and priesthood are directly descended.

Now, it kills me that Baptists, Protestants, and other denominations try to use the Catholic Church's tool, the Bible, as a weapon against them, when they've taken chips out of the blade by saying "this and this we don't want to believe" or "this is contradictory".  Sure, you might catch another sword with those chipped areas, but you're doomed to have your hold on the Bible broken if you try to use it against the Church that created it, IE against someone who knows the faith moreso than someone else like me.
Why did I just give that brief rant?  I've had many similar questions about the priesthood, but more along the lines of "there's no Biblical proof".  Typically, these come from "Sola Scriptura" standpoints, which you cannot have because the Bible was not meant to be deeply read as-is, it was made to be interpreted with the Catholic Tradition, which gives us a direct translation of the Bible's meanings.  For casual layperson reading, it's a good book, but to understand it on a deeper level, you need the guidance of Sacred Tradition.  And so many are confused about the priesthood and Eucharist and so many other Catholic mysteries and traditions because they don't want to believe that you need Tradition to help interpret; they don't want to practice, especially in today's convenience-based "everything on a silver platter" "the power of YOU" society.  In the Bible, Jesus says he's building the church on Peter.  Peter founded the Church from which other denominations are ultimately strayed from, but in that wording to Peter, He was handing His authority to Peter, instituting the priesthood.  Priests must go through years and years of training, learning as much as they can about the faith and becoming as close to God as they can before they begin their public ministry in His Most Holy Son's name and person.

The priest himself is, during the celebration of the Mass, Christ Himself, on a spiritual plane at the very least.  In any ceremony or sacrament, Jesus is present directly through the priest.  We are all vessels of God, but the priest, a job-descendant of Peter, has the authority of Peter passed on to him, making him a conduit of Christ Himself.

I probably shouldn't be putting it this way, but the priest is in essence a sort of projector, kinda like those holographic communiqués seen in Star Wars.  Jesus is projected through the priest, and we talk to Him and hear from Him more directly than on our own.  Think of it as Obi-wan manifesting visually after he dies, appearing as a spirit form whereas before he was only able to be present as an intangible voice.  Christ is all around us, just as Obi-wan was through the Force, but the priest being a conduit is allowing Christ to manifest there on a much deeper level, kind of like Obi-wan's manifestation to Luke on Dagobah.  In our daily lives, God is around us like Obi-wan was through the Force, but in the confessional, he is able to appear on a more substantial level.

Now, the next counter-point I get at this stage of explanation is that "Well, our sins are between us and God, isn't it only to Him that we should confess our sins and not to another fallible human?"
Christ gave Peter, and thusly the priests to whom his power is passed down unto, the ability to hear and absolve sins.  "What you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven; what you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven."  This was another proof in the Bible that the priests have this power.  Christ didn't appoint this power to just anyone, but to Peter and to those to whom his authority of the priesthood would descend on.  The priest is allowed to loose our sins from us, likewise loosing our connection to them in God's eyes.

Jesus didn't do this just for that, but also for a material, human-psyche reason.
To put it in a simultaneously literal-metaphorical syntax...
God is our Father, and we are his children.  He knows all that we do.  This we know.
To continue along that relationship, our Father knows when we do something wrong.
People tell me "Jesus died for our sins, so we don't need to ask for forgiveness since it's already given", or "I shouldn't have to confess because I already know it's okay."
These are both true, but Christ would not have given Peter, and thusly his descended priesthood, the power to loose our sins if His death was enough to cover it completely.
If a young child does something wrong, and knows the Father is watching and knowing of this wrongdoing, the child may know that he's okay and forgiven, but what do children do?  They have a subconscious need to hear, to feel and to know for absolute certain that Daddy forgives them and that everything will be okay.  They have to tell Daddy what they did wrong, otherwise it'll bug them to no end until they hear that all those little problems are okay.  We, like children, have that inherent need to tell someone those "secrets", those little wrongs, and the need to hear someone tell us "It'll be okay".  Likewise, humans have that subconscious need to hear it, to feel that they are forgiven.  That's why it always feels better to "get it off your chest" with another human than to voice it to the unseen presence of God around us, even when we know He's there and He's listening.  True, we are not of this world, and shouldn't be going by material, but we are material nonetheless while we are here and are bound to our material bodies, which need that consolation when through its connection to the soul it senses that something has been done wrong.  Christ, then, was giving us this consolation of the flesh through the voice and power of the priest to absolve our sins and physically tell us we are forgiven just as much as God gives us the spiritual consolation of His eternal love and forgiveness.

The priest, as established above, is (in another crude term) an avatar of Christ, a conduit, so therefore, in the confessional Christ is directly there.  The human subconscious, even if knowing God forgives, needs to physically explain to another material being their wrongdoings, and to physically hear with their own ears that they are forgiven, as mentioned above, for true subconscious relief on the matter.  When the priest absolves your sins, it's both Christ, and in Him the Father, saying to you, the child, that you're forgiven and that everything will be okay, and it's also the priest exercising his Christ-appointed power of loosing you from your sins, so you are no longer accountable for them when you stand before God for judgement.  True, you can confess to God in your solitude, and be truly sorry, but on a material plane, the subconscious needs that physical, earthly affirmation, and that's what the priest's presence and voice provide while simultaneously providing God's voice and presence for your soul.

There is also the aspect of penance.
Some denominations believe one shouldn't have to do penance since Christ already died for our sins.
True, he did.
Think of it this way.
Before He died, if we broke Daddy's window, we'd be locked in Purgatory when we died...or worse.
When Christ died, he opened the door for us; we can still go home.
But, Daddy still wants us to pay for the damages.
Christ's death opened the door to Heaven for us, and He, like a big brother, chips in through His death to help lower how much we owe Daddy for that window.  We still have to pay for the damage, but the cost is much less steep.
The priest, as part of his binding/loosing power, absolves our sins, but also holds us accountable for breaking those windows.  Whatever he gives for penance is bound both here and before the throne of God as the fine we must pay.  Usually, all the priest will ask us to do is say a few short prayers, or read a few passages of the Bible (not just glance over them, read), or even something like sweeping a section of a sidewalk.  That's all we have to do to repay for what we confess to Jesus in the confessional.  And usually, while one is performing the actions assigned for penance, God will sit down with us and speak to us.  Not verbally, of course, but oftentimes, something will click and you'll realize something.  That's God speaking, and He's much more able to speak to us after we are cleansed of sin when the priest absolves the sins we have confessed.

To put it in yet another metaphor, it's like cleaning house.  You know there's tons of clutter.  The priest, being the conduit of Jesus (for lack of better phrasing since I'm writing this at 1 AM), takes away all the boxes you put before him.  When he absolves you of your sins, those boxes are gone, but you are also charged to try not to obtain the same clutter again.  Your penance is repayment to God for having brought that clutter into His temple which is You; kinda like paying taxes which help destroy those boxes of clutter you've shipped off.

And once that clutter is gone, God can come in more easily and you are able to be closer to Him, without tripping over the clutter of sins or having them distract you or weigh you down, spiritually, emotionally, mentally, physically, whatever-lly.
True, you can confess yourself to God in solitude, but Jesus Himself gave the priest, not you, the power to get rid of those boxes for good and not be held accountable for them.  He wants us to trust Him and His ordinance, and to get over our shy human nature and be able to confess to Him without feeling that we're just blabbing to another human.   It's yet another test of will given by Him.

Priests who hear confessions have to go through intense training beforehand.  They are not allowed to judge you, nor make any indication whatsoever that they know what you have done outside of that confessional room.  Essentially, when the priest enters the confessional, he must empty himself of...himself, and allow Jesus to be there through him.
If you're afraid of going to confession because you feel judged or you're afraid the priest might report you for something...think of it this way.  It's spiritually illegal, in a way, for the priest to judge you for your sins or to tell anyone what you've done.  Doing so puts his head on the line before God's throne for breaking your trust and for violating his training.
When you sit down in that confessional, your material ears hear the voice of the priest.  If you're sitting facing him, you see the material body of the priest.  But through him, Christ is more present than He is if you're sitting alone in your room talking to Him.  Again, picture Obi-wan appearing versus simply talking from the air.  That's the power Christ passed on to Peter and his descended priesthood in those Biblical lines.

"What about the Eucharist?  Jesus was being metaphorical when He instituted that."
No, no, and no.  Christ was NOT metaphorical, that is probably THE biggest stumbling block people encounter when they separate themselves from Sacred Tradition and try to interpret the Bible for themselves.

Jesus was very careful in his ministry to let us know when He is being metaphorical, as in the parables, and when He's being serious, as in when he's explaining His divinity.  There is no place where he says "This is like my body" or any implication of "This is a symbol of my body".  He says "This IS my body, which will be given up for you."

The common counterpoint there?  "Well, things were lost in translation."

Does that then mean that things were lost in translation when Christ said "As I am in the Father, the Father is in me; anyone who goes to the Father must go through me"?  By that translation-loss logic, Christ was being metaphorical there as well, because for all we know, something could have been lost in translation there.  If, then, he was being metaphorical there, why should we proclaim His word when He apparently is not needed to come to the Father?

Why is His preaching there held so solidly by Baptists, but His preaching of "This IS my body" considered obscure?  Christ Himself said He is the Son and the Father is in Him and He is in the Father, so why then is His word suddenly obscure and up for grabs when he uses the exact same serious wording with the breaking of the bread at the Last Supper?

The translation-loss counterpoint is thus invalid, since you can't only apply it to that section of the Bible and leave it out of all the rest.  If you apply the doubt of translation there at the Last Supper, you must apply it to the rest of Scripture.  What you do to one side of the equation, you must do to the other.  This is something many people don't want to do because they want to pick and choose for themselves, which is not something you do with religion or the Bible.

The next question I get is usually along the lines of "But it's not real flesh, it's still symbolic."
Yeah.  On the physical plane it's still bread, that's all we as humans can detect.
To use another, much more apt metaphorical reference, think of it as light.  We as material beings can only detect a very slim fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, namely, the bands of color.  When we make the bread that comprises those Eucharistic hosts, they are simply that fraction of color spectrum.
When the priest, aforementioned being the conduit of Christ, repeats the phrase "This IS my body", Christ through him and in him is saying that, and in that moment, Christ is taking that bread and turning it into His flesh.
Now, back to the light metaphor.  That bread, in that moment, suddenly becomes the entire electromagnetic spectrum of Christ.  However, we are still humans, and can only see, feel, taste, smell and hear (if it's the kind of wafer that makes a snapping sound when it breaks) the physical substance of the bread.  We as material beings are not equipped to detect the additional presences of Christ in that bread; we can't pick up on his gamma or microwave radiations.  They are there, but we cannot sense them.

However, in some rare, extraordinary cases, the host and wine become true flesh and blood; Christ's gamma waves and microwaves and other metaphorical supernatural essence within that consecrated piece of food seem to leak out and manifest in the physical world.  These miracles are often covered up by the media and are buried through the efforts of denouncers who don't want it to be known, but they still happen.  Hosts have suddenly shed layers of skin or dripped with real human blood; sometimes, if dropped, they will have bruises or stains of blood despite not having any ingredients that could possibly become bruises or blood.  Wine has coagulated into scabs of blood, and apparently there are bloodstains where wine fell and permeated marble at a church I can't remember the name or location of right now but heard about it from several different people.  Sometimes pieces of the bread have turned into solid pieces of flesh.
Have these been scientifically tested?
Hundreds, thousands of times over, and the results are always the same: that this is real human flesh and blood.
The DNA is always a match, even over the hundreds of years that some of these have survived and occurred around the world.

One example I saw from Mexico was rather shocking; they were able to identify the cells of the flesh of one of these miraculous manifested hosts.  What they found was that it was heart tissue.
And the cells were beating.  Without blood, without a body.  Beating in perfect unison like heart cells are known to do.  What was once simple unleavened bread suddenly transformed into living, beating heart tissue.
Weeks later the samples were sent to America for more thorough testing.  And the cells were STILL beating just as strongly as before.  If they had been taken from a normal human being, the cells would have died by then.  DNA testing found it to be perfect human flesh, and what's more, it was a 100% match to other similar pieces that had transformed in other parts of the world.

One person I've told this to had heard of these tests...and brought up the point that the blood and flesh DNA samples turned up female.
Confusing?
Was God-made-flesh really a woman?
IS GOD A WOMAN??
Heh.  Not really, when you step back and take a look at Christ's conception.
We have male or female DNA because our physical material comes from two genetically variant parents.  Christ, however, only had one material parents from whom His flesh and blood were created.
Mary.
Which fits in perfectly with the fact that God overshadowed her and created Christ within her without a material father to donate physical DNA to add to the mix.
No freaky conspiracy God-genderbender theory there.
Just Scripture.

There's also this I feel I should add, for those of you who enjoy angel stories.
I was once told that if an angel were presented with a consecrated host and a perfectly identical unblessed one (mere bread), and was not told beforehand which was which, the angel would bow before the consecrated host, because it would feel the presence of Christ emanating from that piece.
Well...I shouldn't say this but I think God gave me the gift to feel and sometimes see otherworldly presences like demons and angels.
Demons often manifest more willingly than angels, but oftentimes I'll see angels at Mass.  Not as solid figures, mind you, just consistent figures off the corners of my eyes.
They bow at the moment of the consecration of the bread and wine, and remain prostrate until the consecrated materials are secured in the Tabernacle.  Even then, when they pass it, they will bow to Him.

Want more down-to-earth proof that He's there?
I think it was at the Vatican, I'd have to look it up again, but before one of the popes visited a chapel to perform Mass, security was called in to sweep the area.  They brought in bloodhounds trained to seek out people.  Not their scents, but to find actual people hiding.  The dogs all zeroed in on the tabernacle and would not budge.
Why?
One of the priests who had celebrated Mass prior to this had accidentally left the consecrated hosts in the Tabernacle.  No one else knew, of course, until the dogs found Jesus in there waiting.

Another story I heard was from a priest who had gone to a visitation event, I think in Medjugorje.  Mary is known to appear there to visionaries.  Maybe it was another apparition site...again, I'd have to check.
This priest had shut-in duty, IE bringing the Eucharist to those who could not go to Church for some reason such as being stuck in bed or unable to leave the house, and he also was expected at this apparition event.  So, running late, he placed the consecrated bread into whatever that little protective thing is called for transportation of the host, stuck it in his inner jacket pocket, and headed out to the visionary site.
He waited with everyone else behind the visionaries.  Eventually, they knelt, signifying that Mary was present.  The priest went to kneel...but found he couldn't.  His knees and back just wouldn't bend.  So here he is, standing there, feeling like a disrespectful idiot because everyone else around him was kneeling before Mary.
Afterwards, someone asked him about it.
"I don't know what happened...I just...couldn't kneel.  It was so strange..."
"Hey...wait...aren't you on shut-in duty after this?"
The priest paused, then quickly checked his pocket.  The host was still there.  The guy asking him just smiled.
"Mary never allows her Son to kneel before her."

Dun dun DUUUUN.
Lawlz.

He would have been able to kneel if he'd left the host in the car, or if it hadn't been consecrated.
But I don't think you're supposed to leave Jesus in the car.
idk.

There are many, many other stories I could offer, but it's almost 3AM now and my memory is GONE.

I'm losing my train of thought on this, so I'm ending this here while I'm ahead, lest I end up going off on tangents and confusing things.
I know my arguments aren't strong or convincing, and that it takes me too damn long to process an answer to these questions (three days or more usually), but this is all I know and all I can give, to the best of my ability at this time of morning.  If you're curious about these things, please do not come to me.  I would encourage you to go to the Catholic Church's website and find more information from the experts my tidbits of knowledge are discerned from.
Before you confront me, please do your own research from the source.  My knowledge comes from Catholic priests, philosophers and other higher-standing figures in the Church, so don't give me the whole "I don't trust priests" bit.  What I say is adapted from what they have said, so you're better off going straight to the source of the river than standing here at my little meandering stream branching off miles down.

Comments are closed due to trolls and debates not being welcome here.
I will answer questions at my own discretion, I would much rather you get answers from an official source than from my fallible mind.

:P (Lick) — Description
June 25 2011

I'm sitting here processing some answers to questions my friend asked me a few days ago in regards to the Catholic faith.  The two hinge questions I can remember, I address here.

"Why do you go to confession?  Why tell another person what you're doing wrong when it's just between you and God?"

Jesus wasn't just founding the Church and Faith when he told Peter "I name you Kepha, and on this kepha (rock) I build my church" and "What you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and what you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven".  Right there, he labeled Peter as the very first priest of the Catholic faith and gave him the power to loose or bind our sins both here on Earth and simultaneously before the throne of God in Heaven before which we will be judged for those sins.  From this authority of Peter, the papacy and priesthood are directly descended.

Now, it kills me that Baptists, Protestants, and other denominations try to use the Catholic Church's tool, the Bible, as a weapon against them, when they've taken chips out of the blade by saying "this and this we don't want to believe" or "this is contradictory".  Sure, you might catch another sword with those chipped areas, but you're doomed to have your hold on the Bible broken if you try to use it against the Church that created it, IE against someone who knows the faith moreso than someone else like me.
Why did I just give that brief rant?  I've had many similar questions about the priesthood, but more along the lines of "there's no Biblical proof".  Typically, these come from "Sola Scriptura" standpoints, which you cannot have because the Bible was not meant to be deeply read as-is, it was made to be interpreted with the Catholic Tradition, which gives us a direct translation of the Bible's meanings.  For casual layperson reading, it's a good book, but to understand it on a deeper level, you need the guidance of Sacred Tradition.  And so many are confused about the priesthood and Eucharist and so many other Catholic mysteries and traditions because they don't want to believe that you need Tradition to help interpret; they don't want to practice, especially in today's convenience-based "everything on a silver platter" "the power of YOU" society.  In the Bible, Jesus says he's building the church on Peter.  Peter founded the Church from which other denominations are ultimately strayed from, but in that wording to Peter, He was handing His authority to Peter, instituting the priesthood.  Priests must go through years and years of training, learning as much as they can about the faith and becoming as close to God as they can before they begin their public ministry in His Most Holy Son's name and person.

The priest himself is, during the celebration of the Mass, Christ Himself, on a spiritual plane at the very least.  In any ceremony or sacrament, Jesus is present directly through the priest.  We are all vessels of God, but the priest, a job-descendant of Peter, has the authority of Peter passed on to him, making him a conduit of Christ Himself.

I probably shouldn't be putting it this way, but the priest is in essence a sort of projector, kinda like those holographic communiqués seen in Star Wars.  Jesus is projected through the priest, and we talk to Him and hear from Him more directly than on our own.  Think of it as Obi-wan manifesting visually after he dies, appearing as a spirit form whereas before he was only able to be present as an intangible voice.  Christ is all around us, just as Obi-wan was through the Force, but the priest being a conduit is allowing Christ to manifest there on a much deeper level, kind of like Obi-wan's manifestation to Luke on Dagobah.  In our daily lives, God is around us like Obi-wan was through the Force, but in the confessional, he is able to appear on a more substantial level.

Now, the next counter-point I get at this stage of explanation is that "Well, our sins are between us and God, isn't it only to Him that we should confess our sins and not to another fallible human?"
Christ gave Peter, and thusly the priests to whom his power is passed down unto, the ability to hear and absolve sins.  "What you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven; what you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven."  This was another proof in the Bible that the priests have this power.  Christ didn't appoint this power to just anyone, but to Peter and to those to whom his authority of the priesthood would descend on.  The priest is allowed to loose our sins from us, likewise loosing our connection to them in God's eyes.

Jesus didn't do this just for that, but also for a material, human-psyche reason.
To put it in a simultaneously literal-metaphorical syntax...
God is our Father, and we are his children.  He knows all that we do.  This we know.
To continue along that relationship, our Father knows when we do something wrong.
People tell me "Jesus died for our sins, so we don't need to ask for forgiveness since it's already given", or "I shouldn't have to confess because I already know it's okay."
These are both true, but Christ would not have given Peter, and thusly his descended priesthood, the power to loose our sins if His death was enough to cover it completely.
If a young child does something wrong, and knows the Father is watching and knowing of this wrongdoing, the child may know that he's okay and forgiven, but what do children do?  They have a subconscious need to hear, to feel and to know for absolute certain that Daddy forgives them and that everything will be okay.  They have to tell Daddy what they did wrong, otherwise it'll bug them to no end until they hear that all those little problems are okay.  We, like children, have that inherent need to tell someone those "secrets", those little wrongs, and the need to hear someone tell us "It'll be okay".  Likewise, humans have that subconscious need to hear it, to feel that they are forgiven.  That's why it always feels better to "get it off your chest" with another human than to voice it to the unseen presence of God around us, even when we know He's there and He's listening.  True, we are not of this world, and shouldn't be going by material, but we are material nonetheless while we are here and are bound to our material bodies, which need that consolation when through its connection to the soul it senses that something has been done wrong.  Christ, then, was giving us this consolation of the flesh through the voice and power of the priest to absolve our sins and physically tell us we are forgiven just as much as God gives us the spiritual consolation of His eternal love and forgiveness.

The priest, as established above, is (in another crude term) an avatar of Christ, a conduit, so therefore, in the confessional Christ is directly there.  The human subconscious, even if knowing God forgives, needs to physically explain to another material being their wrongdoings, and to physically hear with their own ears that they are forgiven, as mentioned above, for true subconscious relief on the matter.  When the priest absolves your sins, it's both Christ, and in Him the Father, saying to you, the child, that you're forgiven and that everything will be okay, and it's also the priest exercising his Christ-appointed power of loosing you from your sins, so you are no longer accountable for them when you stand before God for judgement.  True, you can confess to God in your solitude, and be truly sorry, but on a material plane, the subconscious needs that physical, earthly affirmation, and that's what the priest's presence and voice provide while simultaneously providing God's voice and presence for your soul.

There is also the aspect of penance.
Some denominations believe one shouldn't have to do penance since Christ already died for our sins.
True, he did.
Think of it this way.
Before He died, if we broke Daddy's window, we'd be locked in Purgatory when we died...or worse.
When Christ died, he opened the door for us; we can still go home.
But, Daddy still wants us to pay for the damages.
Christ's death opened the door to Heaven for us, and He, like a big brother, chips in through His death to help lower how much we owe Daddy for that window.  We still have to pay for the damage, but the cost is much less steep.
The priest, as part of his binding/loosing power, absolves our sins, but also holds us accountable for breaking those windows.  Whatever he gives for penance is bound both here and before the throne of God as the fine we must pay.  Usually, all the priest will ask us to do is say a few short prayers, or read a few passages of the Bible (not just glance over them, read), or even something like sweeping a section of a sidewalk.  That's all we have to do to repay for what we confess to Jesus in the confessional.  And usually, while one is performing the actions assigned for penance, God will sit down with us and speak to us.  Not verbally, of course, but oftentimes, something will click and you'll realize something.  That's God speaking, and He's much more able to speak to us after we are cleansed of sin when the priest absolves the sins we have confessed.

To put it in yet another metaphor, it's like cleaning house.  You know there's tons of clutter.  The priest, being the conduit of Jesus (for lack of better phrasing since I'm writing this at 1 AM), takes away all the boxes you put before him.  When he absolves you of your sins, those boxes are gone, but you are also charged to try not to obtain the same clutter again.  Your penance is repayment to God for having brought that clutter into His temple which is You; kinda like paying taxes which help destroy those boxes of clutter you've shipped off.

And once that clutter is gone, God can come in more easily and you are able to be closer to Him, without tripping over the clutter of sins or having them distract you or weigh you down, spiritually, emotionally, mentally, physically, whatever-lly.
True, you can confess yourself to God in solitude, but Jesus Himself gave the priest, not you, the power to get rid of those boxes for good and not be held accountable for them.  He wants us to trust Him and His ordinance, and to get over our shy human nature and be able to confess to Him without feeling that we're just blabbing to another human.   It's yet another test of will given by Him.

Priests who hear confessions have to go through intense training beforehand.  They are not allowed to judge you, nor make any indication whatsoever that they know what you have done outside of that confessional room.  Essentially, when the priest enters the confessional, he must empty himself of...himself, and allow Jesus to be there through him.
If you're afraid of going to confession because you feel judged or you're afraid the priest might report you for something...think of it this way.  It's spiritually illegal, in a way, for the priest to judge you for your sins or to tell anyone what you've done.  Doing so puts his head on the line before God's throne for breaking your trust and for violating his training.
When you sit down in that confessional, your material ears hear the voice of the priest.  If you're sitting facing him, you see the material body of the priest.  But through him, Christ is more present than He is if you're sitting alone in your room talking to Him.  Again, picture Obi-wan appearing versus simply talking from the air.  That's the power Christ passed on to Peter and his descended priesthood in those Biblical lines.

"What about the Eucharist?  Jesus was being metaphorical when He instituted that."
No, no, and no.  Christ was NOT metaphorical, that is probably THE biggest stumbling block people encounter when they separate themselves from Sacred Tradition and try to interpret the Bible for themselves.

Jesus was very careful in his ministry to let us know when He is being metaphorical, as in the parables, and when He's being serious, as in when he's explaining His divinity.  There is no place where he says "This is like my body" or any implication of "This is a symbol of my body".  He says "This IS my body, which will be given up for you."

The common counterpoint there?  "Well, things were lost in translation."

Does that then mean that things were lost in translation when Christ said "As I am in the Father, the Father is in me; anyone who goes to the Father must go through me"?  By that translation-loss logic, Christ was being metaphorical there as well, because for all we know, something could have been lost in translation there.  If, then, he was being metaphorical there, why should we proclaim His word when He apparently is not needed to come to the Father?

Why is His preaching there held so solidly by Baptists, but His preaching of "This IS my body" considered obscure?  Christ Himself said He is the Son and the Father is in Him and He is in the Father, so why then is His word suddenly obscure and up for grabs when he uses the exact same serious wording with the breaking of the bread at the Last Supper?

The translation-loss counterpoint is thus invalid, since you can't only apply it to that section of the Bible and leave it out of all the rest.  If you apply the doubt of translation there at the Last Supper, you must apply it to the rest of Scripture.  What you do to one side of the equation, you must do to the other.  This is something many people don't want to do because they want to pick and choose for themselves, which is not something you do with religion or the Bible.

The next question I get is usually along the lines of "But it's not real flesh, it's still symbolic."
Yeah.  On the physical plane it's still bread, that's all we as humans can detect.
To use another, much more apt metaphorical reference, think of it as light.  We as material beings can only detect a very slim fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, namely, the bands of color.  When we make the bread that comprises those Eucharistic hosts, they are simply that fraction of color spectrum.
When the priest, aforementioned being the conduit of Christ, repeats the phrase "This IS my body", Christ through him and in him is saying that, and in that moment, Christ is taking that bread and turning it into His flesh.
Now, back to the light metaphor.  That bread, in that moment, suddenly becomes the entire electromagnetic spectrum of Christ.  However, we are still humans, and can only see, feel, taste, smell and hear (if it's the kind of wafer that makes a snapping sound when it breaks) the physical substance of the bread.  We as material beings are not equipped to detect the additional presences of Christ in that bread; we can't pick up on his gamma or microwave radiations.  They are there, but we cannot sense them.

However, in some rare, extraordinary cases, the host and wine become true flesh and blood; Christ's gamma waves and microwaves and other metaphorical supernatural essence within that consecrated piece of food seem to leak out and manifest in the physical world.  These miracles are often covered up by the media and are buried through the efforts of denouncers who don't want it to be known, but they still happen.  Hosts have suddenly shed layers of skin or dripped with real human blood; sometimes, if dropped, they will have bruises or stains of blood despite not having any ingredients that could possibly become bruises or blood.  Wine has coagulated into scabs of blood, and apparently there are bloodstains where wine fell and permeated marble at a church I can't remember the name or location of right now but heard about it from several different people.  Sometimes pieces of the bread have turned into solid pieces of flesh.
Have these been scientifically tested?
Hundreds, thousands of times over, and the results are always the same: that this is real human flesh and blood.
The DNA is always a match, even over the hundreds of years that some of these have survived and occurred around the world.

One example I saw from Mexico was rather shocking; they were able to identify the cells of the flesh of one of these miraculous manifested hosts.  What they found was that it was heart tissue.
And the cells were beating.  Without blood, without a body.  Beating in perfect unison like heart cells are known to do.  What was once simple unleavened bread suddenly transformed into living, beating heart tissue.
Weeks later the samples were sent to America for more thorough testing.  And the cells were STILL beating just as strongly as before.  If they had been taken from a normal human being, the cells would have died by then.  DNA testing found it to be perfect human flesh, and what's more, it was a 100% match to other similar pieces that had transformed in other parts of the world.

One person I've told this to had heard of these tests...and brought up the point that the blood and flesh DNA samples turned up female.
Confusing?
Was God-made-flesh really a woman?
IS GOD A WOMAN??
Heh.  Not really, when you step back and take a look at Christ's conception.
We have male or female DNA because our physical material comes from two genetically variant parents.  Christ, however, only had one material parents from whom His flesh and blood were created.
Mary.
Which fits in perfectly with the fact that God overshadowed her and created Christ within her without a material father to donate physical DNA to add to the mix.
No freaky conspiracy God-genderbender theory there.
Just Scripture.

There's also this I feel I should add, for those of you who enjoy angel stories.
I was once told that if an angel were presented with a consecrated host and a perfectly identical unblessed one (mere bread), and was not told beforehand which was which, the angel would bow before the consecrated host, because it would feel the presence of Christ emanating from that piece.
Well...I shouldn't say this but I think God gave me the gift to feel and sometimes see otherworldly presences like demons and angels.
Demons often manifest more willingly than angels, but oftentimes I'll see angels at Mass.  Not as solid figures, mind you, just consistent figures off the corners of my eyes.
They bow at the moment of the consecration of the bread and wine, and remain prostrate until the consecrated materials are secured in the Tabernacle.  Even then, when they pass it, they will bow to Him.

Want more down-to-earth proof that He's there?
I think it was at the Vatican, I'd have to look it up again, but before one of the popes visited a chapel to perform Mass, security was called in to sweep the area.  They brought in bloodhounds trained to seek out people.  Not their scents, but to find actual people hiding.  The dogs all zeroed in on the tabernacle and would not budge.
Why?
One of the priests who had celebrated Mass prior to this had accidentally left the consecrated hosts in the Tabernacle.  No one else knew, of course, until the dogs found Jesus in there waiting.

Another story I heard was from a priest who had gone to a visitation event, I think in Medjugorje.  Mary is known to appear there to visionaries.  Maybe it was another apparition site...again, I'd have to check.
This priest had shut-in duty, IE bringing the Eucharist to those who could not go to Church for some reason such as being stuck in bed or unable to leave the house, and he also was expected at this apparition event.  So, running late, he placed the consecrated bread into whatever that little protective thing is called for transportation of the host, stuck it in his inner jacket pocket, and headed out to the visionary site.
He waited with everyone else behind the visionaries.  Eventually, they knelt, signifying that Mary was present.  The priest went to kneel...but found he couldn't.  His knees and back just wouldn't bend.  So here he is, standing there, feeling like a disrespectful idiot because everyone else around him was kneeling before Mary.
Afterwards, someone asked him about it.
"I don't know what happened...I just...couldn't kneel.  It was so strange..."
"Hey...wait...aren't you on shut-in duty after this?"
The priest paused, then quickly checked his pocket.  The host was still there.  The guy asking him just smiled.
"Mary never allows her Son to kneel before her."

Dun dun DUUUUN.
Lawlz.

He would have been able to kneel if he'd left the host in the car, or if it hadn't been consecrated.
But I don't think you're supposed to leave Jesus in the car.
idk.

There are many, many other stories I could offer, but it's almost 3AM now and my memory is GONE.

I'm losing my train of thought on this, so I'm ending this here while I'm ahead, lest I end up going off on tangents and confusing things.
I know my arguments aren't strong or convincing, and that it takes me too damn long to process an answer to these questions (three days or more usually), but this is all I know and all I can give, to the best of my ability at this time of morning.  If you're curious about these things, please do not come to me.  I would encourage you to go to the Catholic Church's website and find more information from the experts my tidbits of knowledge are discerned from.
Before you confront me, please do your own research from the source.  My knowledge comes from Catholic priests, philosophers and other higher-standing figures in the Church, so don't give me the whole "I don't trust priests" bit.  What I say is adapted from what they have said, so you're better off going straight to the source of the river than standing here at my little meandering stream branching off miles down.

Comments are closed due to trolls and debates not being welcome here.
I will answer questions at my own discretion, I would much rather you get answers from an official source than from my fallible mind.