Absolution in the early church for mortal sins that weren't the big 3

[chessnerd321]

I came into the church just about 15 months ago. One of the things that drew me in was the shocking historical continuity of the Catholic church–the ancient fathers are stunningly Catholic on papal infallibility, Mary, the Communion of Saints, the Eucharist etc.

However, I really struggle to see this continuity when it comes to the sacrament of confession. Maybe the best way for you guys to help me clear this up is for me to make a list of a few propositions that seem to be at odds with one another and someone can explain why they’re wrong, or not contradictory.

P1. If you die with an unconfessed mortal sin you’re in peril of hell.

P2. Mortal sins are ordinarily forgiven by priests through the sacrament of reconciliation.

P3. They can however be forgiven if the person is perfectly contrite, but there is no way to know if someone is perfectly contrite.

P4. In the first several centuries of the church only murder, apostasy, and adultery were confessed.

C. Anyone who committed any other mortal sin in the early church is potentially in the peril of hell because the church hadn’t developed modern confession yet.

I know I have to be wrong, but I just don’t see it. My priest didn’t have much of an answer I’m hoping someone can help me out. I’m just sick of this being a nagging question in the back of my mind.

EDIT: Apparently I can only comment so many times because I’m new. I’ll just link the site where i found a lot of quotes from a few fathers and leave my comments on them.

I’m not a historian, but do you have a list of the early Church’s “Confessionals?”

Could you clarify how you’ve concluded that the Church only held three sins as needed to be confessed?

It is quotes like the following that have lead me to this conclusion:

St. Irenaeus of Lyons
180 AD
Against Heresies 1:22

“[The gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women…Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron [cf. 1 Tim 4:1ff]. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses.”

And while there’s plenty of other quotes about confessing ones sins to a priest, none of these seem to necessarily imply private confession. Further, many church fathers implore people to confess to ONE ANOTHER not to a priest. And while that might still be a holy and righteous thing, it doesn’t bring absolution necessarily.

Here’s where I was just taking a look for example (I don’t feel like pasting in a million quotes): http://www.stsophiaukrainian.cc/resources/ecfonconfession/

Thanks for all the help. I’ll be back later when I’m allowed to talk again lol.

 

[Arwing]

Since this seems to me that some of this could be related to the common claim that confession was exclusively public (and only for a select few sins) in the early Church, The Council of Trent, in session XIV, chapter 5,

As regards the method of confessing secretly to the priest alone, though Christ did not forbid that any one, in punishment of his crimes and for his own humiliation as also to give others an example and to edify the Church, should confess his sins publicly, still, this has not been commanded by Divine precept nor would it be prudent to decree by any human law that sins, especially secret sins, should be publicly confessed. Since, then, secret sacramental confession, which from the beginning has been and even now is the usage of the Church, was always commended with great and unanimous consent by the holiest and most ancient Fathers; thereby is plainly refuted the foolish calumny of those who make bold to teach that it (secret confession) is something foreign to the Divine command, a human invention devised by the Fathers assembled in the Lateran Council

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

states that private confession was in use from the earliest days of the Church. I’m not very well read on this aspect of Church history but I imagine then that murder, apostasy and adultery were given a special emphasis in terms of penance (at least that’s what I’ve heard), not that they were the only sins confessed.

Hopefully someone else can provide further elaboration or clarification.

 

[jcrichton]

Hi!

Let’s see if I can help…

P1. If you die with an unconfessed mortal sin you’re in peril of hell.

P2. Mortal sins are ordinarily forgiven by priests through the sacrament of reconciliation.

Jesus stated that there’s one sin which is not forgiven in this nor the next Life–Blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.

What does that mean? Many believe that it is simply attributing to Satan what the Holy Spirit does. But is that the extent of it?

Consider, rather, that that sin is not Believing in the Holy Spirit.

Why? Because it is He, the Holy Spirit, the Instrument of God’s Revelation:

7 And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit. 8 To one indeed, by the Spirit, is given the word of wisdom: and to another, the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; 9 To another, faith in the same spirit; to another, the grace of healing in one Spirit; 10 To another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discerning of spirits; to another, diverse kinds of tongues; to another, interpretation of speeches. 11 But all these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will. (1 Corinthians 12)

Hence, it is the Holy Spirit that makes it possible for man to Hear the Father’s Calling, to Respond to Him, to Seek Jesus, to Learn from Him and to Abide in Him–rejection of the Commandments is a rejection of the Holy Spirit’s Teaching… as St. Paul stated: ‘do not grieve the Holy Spirit.’

Now, since Christ delegated His Authority to the Church, the Church can absolve the sin committed by man; not the unforgivable sin (against the Holy Spirit); yet, by seeking reconciliation with God (the Sacrament of Confession) man is acknowledging that he needs God’s Holy Spirit to work in him in order to Return to God.

P3. They can however be forgiven if the person is perfectly contrite, but there is no way to know if someone is perfectly contrite.

The Church does not determine this; God determines it. How?:

3 For perverse thoughts separate from God: and his power, when it is tried, reproveth the unwise: 4 For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.5 For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful, and will withdraw himself from thoughts that are without understanding, and he shall not abide when iniquity cometh in. (Wisdom 1)

P4. In the first several centuries of the church only murder, apostasy, and adultery were confessed.

C. Anyone who committed any other mortal sin in the early church is potentially in the peril of hell because the church hadn’t developed modern confession yet.

I’m not a historian, but do you have a list of the early Church’s “Confessionals?”

Could you clarify how you’ve concluded that the Church only held three sins as needed to be confessed?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[MT1926]

P4. In the first several centuries of the church only murder, apostasy, and adultery were confessed.

From what I found here it doesn’t say these were the only sins confessed. It says these were the only sins allowed to be confessed once.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm#II

1447 Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery) was tied to a very rigorous discipline, according to which penitents had to do public penance for their sins, often for years, before receiving reconciliation. To this “order of penitents” (which concerned only certain grave sins), one was only rarely admitted and in certain regions only once in a lifetime. During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the “private” practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. It allowed the forgiveness of grave sins and venial sins to be integrated into one sacramental celebration. In its main lines this is the form of penance that the Church has practiced down to our day.

C. Anyone who committed any other mortal sin in the early church is potentially in the peril of hell because the church hadn’t developed modern confession yet.

I would probably leave this one up to God and not lose any sleep over it. The Bible tells us that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Not perfectly told what to do every step of the way. Some things need to develop over time especially with cultural changes.

We need to keep in mind that the Christians of those days were very aware of the reality of martyrdom that could happen to them. They didn’t become Christian unless they were serious about following Christ and the Church He founded by the Holy Spirit. If they weren’t willing to sign on for everything they did not become a Christian. People actually believed in and followed the Authority left here on earth as their guide. This held them to a higher standard than we hold ourselves to in this generation.

Jesus commissioned the Apostles with the Authority that whatever sins they forgive are forgiven whatever sins they retain are retained. Jesus left the rest up to them. The way I see it if the Apostles chose to be more strict on what sins they were willing to forgive in the beginning and their successors decided they needed to be a little less strict in future generations, then that is still within the bounds of the Authority given to them by Christ.

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[jcrichton]

I meant, do you have the Church’s Teaching (quote from the Church’s Doctrinal Teaching) that it is as you’ve stated.

…as for the first quote… how do you determine that there’s a list/limit of three sins to be confessed?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gorgias]

P3. They can however be forgiven if the person is perfectly contrite, but there is no way to know if someone is perfectly contrite.

Remember, though: even with perfect contrition, sacramental reconciliation is still required!

P4. In the first several centuries of the church only murder, apostasy, and adultery were confessed.

C. Anyone who committed any other mortal sin in the early church is potentially in the peril of hell because the church hadn’t developed modern confession yet.

I think I would say that, in the earliest days of the Church, the “big 3” were the ones that were publicly confessed. They were also the ones that were seen to require lengthy, public penance.

Moreover, in the beginning days, people didn’t yet have the understanding that they could be forgiven more than once for one of the “big three” sins. In fact, they saw how difficult it was to go through the process and, although they wanted forgiveness for sins, they also didn’t want to have to work that hard for it. (That’s why, BTW, people in those days sometimes waited until late in life to be baptized – since baptism brought forgiveness of sin without penance!)

So, just as other understandings of Christ’s teachings took time and developed as our understanding grew, so too it was with the sacrament of reconciliation.

Does that mean that people didn’t have means for forgiveness outside of lengthy penance for “the big three”? No. Augustine preached it in this way:

I do not tell you that you will live here without sin; but they are venial, without which this life is not. For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. What has the Prayer? “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.” Once for all we have washing in Baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which you must needs be separated from Christ’s body: which be far from you! For those whom you have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot out these daily prayer would suffice.

So, I think I would respond that the Church is the proper authority to provide definitions of sin and penance and forgiveness. And, if all they recognized as ‘mortal’ in the early days was “the big three”, then only those required penance and sacramental forgiveness. As Augustine puts it, all the other (“lighter”) sins require prayer.

So… no worries! It’s not that people were burning in hell because the Church didn’t offer them the sacrament of reconciliation in the way she offers it today!

Could you clarify how you’ve concluded that the Church only held three sins as needed to be confessed?

That’s the way it was in the early Church. The three ‘big’ sins were murder, adultery, and apostasy. These required public penance; other sins did not.

 

[jcrichton]

Moreover, in the beginning days, people didn’t yet have the understanding that they could be forgiven more than once for one of the “big three” sins. In fact, they saw how difficult it was to go through the process

I think this goes to form and function… there are people who still believe that murder is an unforgivable sin… yet, still others who believe that one cannot sin and remain in Fellowship with Christ–these, of course, as those in the past are working from a zealousness perspective… they want to dispense God’s Justice and Mercy as they understand it… however, Christ was very specific about the unforgivable sin: Blasphemy (denial) of the Holy Spirit.

And while there is a correlation between multiplicity of sin, repeating the same sin/s and true repentance, only God can truly tell when a heart has been in Perfect Contrition and when a mind has Turn Back to God.

That’s the way it was in the early Church. The three ‘big’ sins were murder, adultery, and apostasy. These required public penance; other sins did not.

But was the practice of public penance demonstrative of Church’s Teaching on sin (what constituted venial/mortal sin and what sin/s required to confess)?

I can recall the demand on Confession at least once a year… yet, does that mean that the Church Teaches that a Catholic need only to Confess once every year?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[thistle]

I can recall the demand on Confession at least once a year… yet, does that mean that the Church Teaches that a Catholic need only to Confess once every year?

Catholics are required to receive Communion once a year (during the Easter period). Obviously to receive you must be in a state of grace so if not then Confession would be required.
However, a person in a state of grace may still confess regularly (good habit) but is not required to confess.
In short the once a year requirement is to receive Communion.

 

[jcrichton]

However, a person in a state of grace may still confess regularly (good habit) but is not required to confess.
In short the once a year requirement is to receive Communion.

But was this not the minimum requirements? Requirements that were there not to limit the behavior of Catholics but to make it possible to remain a practicing Catholic even and in spite of all of the physical and personal impediments (no Priest able to visit the Flock, warring parties, oppressive government/s, rural (extremely) parishioners, etc…)?

As the Church grew it became difficult to tend to the Flock that lived in rural areas or under anti-Christian regimes–we still have those in today’s world; however, there are those who take the minimalist approach and cite such requirements as the actual Teaching of the Church (confess once a year, you’re ok, I’m ok).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gorgias]

But was the practice of public penance demonstrative of Church’s Teaching on sin (what constituted venial/mortal sin and what sin/s required to confess)?

I think it’d be reasonable to say that it reflected the Church’s understanding on forgiveness in a sacramental context, as they understood it then.

I can recall the demand on Confession at least once a year… yet, does that mean that the Church Teaches that a Catholic need only to Confess once every year?

No. That’s a minimum requirement.

 

[chessnerd321]

Sorry I was away for a few days I hope people are still willing to continue the conversation.

So, I think I would respond that the Church is the proper authority to provide definitions of sin and penance and forgiveness. And, if all they recognized as ‘mortal’ in the early days was “the big three”, then only those required penance and sacramental forgiveness. As Augustine puts it, all the other (“lighter”) sins require prayer.

See, this is the conclusion I also came up with, but I can’t find myself being as satisfied with it as you seem to be. Hopefully we agree that morality is absolute, so the graveness of matter, and thus possibility of mortal sin exists whether or not the church, or anyone else, recognizes it. With that in mind, it makes it sound rather like Augustine is supporting something much closer to a protestant position–that we can pray sins away without the authority we believe Christ gave only to priests.

EDIT: I’m aware that we recognize that the Our Father and many other things absolve you of venial sins. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m referring to mortal sins.

 

[Gorgias]

See, this is the conclusion I also came up with, but I can’t find myself being as satisfied with it as you seem to be.

It seems to me that you’re somewhat surprised that the teaching about the sacraments of the Church has developed over time. I’m “satisfied”, because I realize that this is the case. Perhaps, if you familiarized yourself with the history of sacramental theology and practice, you might see that this is true, and you’d be more at peace with this dynamic?

Hopefully we agree that morality is absolute, so the graveness of matter, and thus possibility of mortal sin exists whether or not the church, or anyone else, recognizes it.

Ahh, but who has the right – and the authority! – to proclaim the moral theology of the Church? I mean, if the Church isn’t the one who proclaims it (after all, “what you hold bound on earth, will be bound in heaven”, right?), who is? Moreover, doesn’t Christ himself tell the apostles “whose sins you forgive are forgiven them”? So… if the early Church forgave in a different way, then that was its prerogative, don’t you think?

With that in mind, it makes it sound rather like Augustine is supporting something much closer to a protestant position–that we can pray sins away without the authority we believe Christ gave only to priests.

I saw your edit, so I see that you recognize that we can receive forgiveness for venial sins through prayer. If the Church is able to authoritatively make this determination, isn’t it the case that they also were able to make the determinations authoritatively that they did, back in the early days?

 

[chessnerd321]

Perhaps, if you familiarized yourself with the history of sacramental theology and practice, you might see that this is true, and you’d be more at peace with this dynamic?

I appreciate this, and yes. Does making this thread count? (lightly said)

If the Church is able to authoritatively make this determination, isn’t it the case that they also were able to make the determinations authoritatively that they did, back in the early days?

I suppose this is the big question, isn’t it? My understanding is that questions of this nature are decided based on which of two categories they fit into: dogma/doctrine and discipline. For example, it was never a moral issue as to whether or not a woman should wear a head-covering (other than the separate moral issue of obeying Christ’s church). The church could demand head-covering for the one decade and recant the demand the next decade. This is how the church was able to change the mass etc in V2. There’s no infallible dogma of how one must have Eucharistic Liturgy.

Conversely, take something like the Eucharist. We have always believed the words of institution are to be taken literally, but we’ve come to a fuller understanding through the doctrine of transubstantiation. The teaching never changed but was clarified.

I suppose that I feel reconciliation is in the nebulous middle ground between the two cases. The only way to be certain of absolution for mortal sins is through the priesthood. That is an infallible, absolute truth taught by the RCC. For me, it seems hard to swallow that the church was just expressing the gift in a different way. Here’s my main point I’ve been leading up to: If private prayer were enough for forgiveness, then why were the post V2 abuses of general absolution halted? Can this be explained away as a discipline, or is that form genuinely invalid? If it’s invalid, it was invalid for the early church as well.

So I suppose I see four possible ultimate answers to my question at this point:

1. We are misconstruing church history and their confession is more extensive then we realize.
2. The ancients were not sure of their state of grace or lack thereof. (Definitely possible, why else did many wait until their deathbed to receive the sacraments of initiation?)
3. The protestants are right, and Christianity is wrong because Protestantism is incoherent.
4. General absolution without the intent of private confession is valid but currently illicit. This would give more of a solid line back to this thread’s current understanding of the early church practice, allowing us to construe it as development as you suggested.

EDIT: Said three solutions at first then listed for, lol silly me

 

[Gorgias]

This is how the church was able to change the mass etc in V2. There’s no infallible dogma of how one must have Eucharistic Liturgy.

Right. The Church has the authority to define liturgy, and it does so in a way that develops over time. Of course, there is not one single liturgy of the Church.

The Church also has authority over the administration of the sacraments, which is where our present conversation comes into play.

I suppose that I feel reconciliation is in the nebulous middle ground between the two cases. The only way to be certain of absolution for mortal sins is through the priesthood. That is an infallible, absolute truth taught by the RCC. For me, it seems hard to swallow that the church was just expressing the gift in a different way.

I think I’d like to make a distinction between the existence of the sacrament itself (i.e., doctrine) and the ritual by which the sacrament is adminstered (i.e., discipline). In the case of reconciliation, then, I would categorize the question of “which sins require which rite” to fall under the latter of those two. At least, that’s my take on it. (That being the case, then, it seems that all of the developments of the sacrament are valid and licit.)

Here’s my main point I’ve been leading up to: If private prayer were enough for forgiveness, then why were the post V2 abuses of general absolution halted?

Because general absolution is part of the sacrament; forgiveness for venial sin, on the other hand, is not sacramental absolution.

Can this be explained away as a discipline, or is that form genuinely invalid? If it’s invalid, it was invalid for the early church as well.

Hang on a second – forgiveness for venial sin is not the same thing as general absolution! There’s a rite for general absolution (which includes the prayer of absolution that’s part of regular confession, IIRC) which must be followed! The ‘abuses’ were instances that the rite and rubrics weren’t being followed! That’s different than the penitential act at Mass, or reception of Eucharist (both with bring forgiveness from venial sin)!

 

[Gorgias]

So I suppose I see four possible ultimate answers to my question at this point:

1. We are misconstruing church history and their confession is more extensive then we realize.

No. It’s my understanding that the characterization of the history of the sacrament of reconciliation is as it’s been presented here. (When I get a chance, I’ll look and see if I can’t provide some book suggestions for you, with respect to the history of the sacrament.)

1. The ancients were not sure of their state of grace or lack thereof. (Definitely possible, why else did many wait until their deathbed to receive the sacraments of initiation?)

No, I don’t think this holds, either. And, I’ve always understood the “wait until the last minute” not as “I’m not sure of my state”, but rather, “I want to make sure that I don’t have to go through a rigorous post-baptismal process of penance”!

1. The protestants are right, and Christianity is wrong because Protestantism is incoherent.

Nope. Not gonna assent to that one, either.

1. General absolution without the intent of private confession is valid but currently illicit.

Nope. Not valid, according to canon 962.

This would give more of a solid line back to this thread’s current understanding of the early church practice, allowing us to construe it as development as you suggested.

I think you’re conflating “general absolution” and “forgiveness of venial sin through prayer”. That’s the only reason you’d posit linkage here. Since they’re distinct, I think the question of the development of the sacrament doesn’t touch upon these considerations.

 

[chessnerd321]

Thank you very much for your answer and patience with me. I might be starting to get it.

When I get a chance, I’ll look and see if I can’t provide some book suggestions for you, with respect to the history of the sacrament.

Yes I’d appreciate that if you do come up with something.

I think you’re conflating “general absolution” and “forgiveness of venial sin through prayer”. That’s the only reason you’d posit linkage here.

Sorry for my lack of clarity. I was actually trying to contrast them. I understood you to be saying that not only could prayer absolve venial sin, but also mortal sin:

And, if all they recognized as ‘mortal’ in the early days was “the big three”, then only those required penance and sacramental forgiveness. As Augustine puts it, all the other (“lighter”) sins require prayer.

But we agreed that some of these “lighter” sins must have also been grave matter and thus possibly mortal when we agreed that morality is absolute. The closest thing we have to this in modern memory is general absolution. However, thank you for the canon law reference. General absolution isn’t even valid unless the penitent never has a chance to privately confess, understood.

But this puts me back where my issue was to begin with:

I think I’d like to make a distinction between the existence of the sacrament itself (i.e., doctrine) and the ritual by which the sacrament is adminstered (i.e., discipline). In the case of reconciliation, then, I would categorize the question of “which sins require which rite” to fall under the latter of those two.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but to me, discipline essentially means that the issue at hand is one of prudence/promoting saintliness in the faithful. Thus, if it’s true that which sins must be confessed is a matter of discipline, then the Church could change it tomorrow if she felt like it. That’s an uncomfortable conclusion. Can you explain what I’m still not understanding?

 

[Gorgias]

I understood you to be saying that not only could prayer absolve venial sin, but also mortal sin:

Ahh. No, the nuance I’m trying to suggest is that mortal sin is defined by the Church. If it had not been defined as mortal sin at that point in time, then it wasn’t mortal sin. And therefore, since it was venial sin, it could be forgiven through prayer.

We can use the example of the development of doctrine and dogma as an aid here. Prior to the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, was it true that Mary was immaculately conceived? (Of course! It’s not like it only became true when declared!) But, prior to its declaration, were Catholics bound to assent to the belief? (Nope. That obligation only attached after it was declared dogmatically by the Church.)

I would say that the same thing holds here: having not been declared as grave sins by the early Church – since only the “big three” were matter for penance – Christians were not obligated to a standard that would only later come to bear.

Does that help?

Thus, if it’s true that which sins must be confessed is a matter of discipline, then the Church could change it tomorrow if she felt like it.

I think it’s more the case that, at some point, this definition did not exist – and therefore, was not binding – but now, since the definition does exist, it is binding!

 

[jcrichton]

I think it’d be reasonable to say that it reflected the Church’s understanding on forgiveness in a sacramental context, as they understood it then.

Exactly!

We have only to turn to secular society. When I was growing up there was no hatefulness of people who were behaving differently (homosexuality, adultery, fornication, drug abuse, domestic violence…); yet, there was a clear notion that certain things were not to be imitated, embraced or exalted. Even in the minds of “non-religious” wickedness/immorality was wrong. The world changed. Some even believe it a “badge” of man/womanhood to engage in such behavior.

It has been the same in the “religious” arena. We have traveled from a culture of Believers who sinned sporadically to sinners who believe they have the right to do as they will as God will forgive no matter what.

The zealousness in the past led some to define that certain sins were unforgivable or of being able to receive absolution only once for certain sins; hence, the various understanding and practice.

Yet, the Church never taught that there’s limit to God’s Mercy or Power.

However, there comes a time when people, as Padre Pio, would make sinners face the reality: “stop being a hypocrite!, Confess your sin, yes; yet, strive not to remain in sin or continue in the sin, instead of relying on ‘God must forgive.’”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

• The ancients were not sure of their state of grace or lack thereof. (Definitely possible, why else did many wait until their deathbed to receive the sacraments of initiation?)
• The protestants are right, and Christianity is wrong because Protestantism is incoherent.
• General absolution without the intent of private confession is valid but currently illicit. This would give more of a solid line back to this thread’s current understanding of the early church practice, allowing us to construe it as development as you suggested.

The issue is having 20/20 hindsight.

The Church Unfolded right from Sacred Writings.

The Way became Christians; this did not take place during Jesus’ Ministry although we have Scriptures that demined that there was a “hidden” name that Jesus Followers would be given. The Church as the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, this is also from Scriptures. The Writings of the Apostles as Sacred Writing, also from Scriptures as St. Peter decreed that these Writings were also Scriptures… we have the call to anathema–anyone who rejects Christ as the Son of man, as true God, as the Messiah or anyone who rejects or changes or circumvents Christ’s Gospel is cursed with anathema (something in the terms of self-excommunication).

We also find Church Hierarchy, Doctrine, and Social Justice, including the formation of an Office to tend to the parishioners’ needs, develop right in Scriptures.

We have also experienced that Doctrine and Practice required finetuning as both practices and vocabulary would, as with any organic being, change, grow, and die in order to edify or maintain the Body of Christ.

Maran atha!

Angel