Authority of the Church

[hurst]

Kendy:

Can a catholic priest deny someone absolution

Yes.

Kendy:

and if he did, what if I just went to another priest?

I see your point.

The thing is, it used to be that we could only go to our parish priest for confession. We weren’t allowed to go to anyone else without express permission. But that is no longer in effect, perhaps since the last change in the Code of Canon Law in 1983.

But if you are rejected for absolution, it is usually something very objective, like being married outside the Church. No matter what priest you go to, they should all refuse absolution until the marriage is rectified.

If you withhold information from a priest in order to gain absolution, then you have committed sacrilege, and the absolution is null and void, and you have an additional sin added to your other non-forgiven ones.

One of the roles of the priest is to judge whether your sins are venial or mortal, and whether there is any impediment to giving absolution. Certain kinds of excommunication can only be absolved by a bishop or the Pope, for example.

Anyway, a better contrast would be: if person A refused to forgive person B, but person B went to a priest and received absolution, then person B is forgiven despite what person A thinks.
(e.g. Committing murder can be forgiven by the priest despite the unforgiveness harbored in the deceased one’s relatives)

Likewise, if person C committed a mortal sin and was forgiven by person D, then regardless of person D’s good humor, person C is still not forgiven.
(e.g. Missing Mass might be ‘forgiven’ by your friend, but until you reconcile with the Church, their good will won’t help the state of your soul to return to grace)

hurst

 

[Gareth]

Hi All,

I’m very close to accepting your strong, arguments in favour of the Church… but I’m interested to know how you justify this:

Recently I read that the Pope has said that the afterlife destination of unbatized infants is not Limbo as previously taught. What has changed? did the Church earlier make a mistake? Is this now being corrected, how do you view this, is this something that has been made clearer?

Thanks in advance
Gareth

 

[St.Eric]

Gareth:

Hi All,

I’m very close to accepting your strong, arguments in favour of the Church… but I’m interested to know how you justify this:

Recently I read that the Pope has said that the afterlife destination of unbatized infants is not Limbo as previously taught. What has changed? did the Church earlier make a mistake? Is this now being corrected, how do you view this, is this something that has been made clearer?

Thanks in advance
Gareth

I don’t believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, that limbo was ever a dogma of the church. Therefore, the tradition of limbo can be changed given the church’s ever expanding understanding of the faith through the H.S… The faith doesn’t change but the church’s understanding of it can grow.

 

[hurst]

Gareth:

Recently I read that the Pope has said that the afterlife destination of unbatized infants is not Limbo as previously taught. What has changed?

The Limbo of unbaptized infants was a hyposthesis from the middle ages to reconcile the teachings between original sin, actual sin, and baptism.

What has changed is that the Church wants to just say we “don’t know” what happens, and thus leave open the possibility that God in His mercy does something proper to Himself that still allows for them to be in heaven.

Gareth:

did the Church earlier make a mistake? Is this now being corrected, how do you view this, is this something that has been made clearer?

What is being made clear is that the Limbo of unbaptised infants is not dogma.

I was never taught that it was certain. There always seemed to be an appellation that it was not dogma. But it did give an acceptable temporary solution to the issue.

By the way, there is not just one kind of Limbo. It is certain that there was another Limbo of the just, where souls were detained until Christ opened heaven.

hurst

 

[FCEGM]

Kendy, I think you might find these three articles helpful as you study the issue of authority:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a45.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/a44.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/a48.htm

Perhaps it was already recommended in the previous postings, but I would also recommend Mark Shea’s excellent book, By What Authority?

 

[Gareth]

If it was never dogma then that makes sense, So it was sort of like an understanding that many Catholics had, and the Pope wanted to make sure this wasn’t misunderstood as being a certainity, but leaves the power with God to have mercy.

What about the split between East and West. Where they Mututally Excommuncated each other but this was later lifted?

 

[Subrosa]

Gareth:

If it was never dogma then that makes sense, So it was sort of like an understanding that many Catholics had, and the Pope wanted to make sure this wasn’t misunderstood as being a certainity, but leaves the power with God to have mercy.

What about the split between East and West. Where they Mututally Excommuncated each other but this was later lifted?

Yes, in 1968.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html

Subrosa

 

[Subrosa]

St.Eric:

I don’t believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, that limbo was ever a dogma of the church. Therefore, the tradition of limbo can be changed given the church’s ever expanding understanding of the faith through the H.S… The faith doesn’t change but the church’s understanding of it can grow.

**Closing the doors of limbo: Theologians say it was hypothesis

**VATICAN CITY (CNS) – An international group of Vatican-appointed theologians is about to recommend that the Catholic Church close the doors of limbo forever. Many Catholics grew up thinking limbo – the place where babies who have died without baptism spend eternity in a state of “natural happiness” but not in the presence of God – was part of Catholic tradition. Instead, it was a hypothesis – a theory held out as a possible way to balance the Christian belief in the necessity of baptism with belief in God’s mercy. Like hypotheses in any branch of science, a theological hypothesis can be proven wrong or be set aside when it is clear it does not help explain Catholic faith. Meeting Nov. 28-Dec. 2 at the Vatican, the International Theological Commission, a group of theologians led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger until his election as Pope Benedict XVI, completed its work on a statement regarding “the fate of babies who have died without baptism.” U.S. Archbishop William J. Levada, president of the theological commission in his role as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told Pope Benedict Dec. 1 that he hoped the statement would be published soon.

catholicnews.com/data/briefs/cns/20051202.htmhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[hurst]

Subrosa:

Originally Posted by Gareth
What about the split between East and West. Where they Mututally Excommuncated each other but this was later lifted?

Yes, in 1968.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html

Good link! (BTW, it is dated “DECEMBER 7, 1965”, not 1968 )

This stood out to me:

They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.

JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html

In any case, no one can excommunicate the Pope.

1. 
   *] Christ gave His Church an hierarchical constitution (De fide)
   *] The powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the bishops (De fide)
   *] Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction (De fide)
   *] According to Christ’s ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time (De fide)
   *] The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome (De fide)
   *] The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church (De fide)
   *] The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra (De fide)
   *] By virtue of Divine right the bishops possess an odinary power of government over their dioceses (De fide)
   *] The individual bishop receives his pastoral power immediately from the Pope (Sent. probabilior)
   
   hurst

 

[Gareth]

Those are good answers thanks.

I read in the Lion History of Christianity on Pg 92 it speaks about

“the principle that the reality of baptism and ordination do not depend on the moral character of the person who performs it, but on Christ & the Spirit”

If this is a principle which the Chruch holds to, which I think is logical and makes sense, it would also mean there can be bad priests and bad bishops, but that they could still ordain others without breaking apostolic succession. There have certainly been bad priests I think we’d all acknowledge that. Bad bishops no doubt? Is it not also possible that there has been ‘Bad Popes’ in the past?

And if so, when these Popes spoke, surely they could not be upheld as infallible, could they?

 

[hurst]

Gareth:

There have certainly been bad priests I think we’d all acknowledge that. Bad bishops no doubt? Is it not also possible that there has been ‘Bad Popes’ in the past?

Yes and yes, unfortunately.

Gareth:

And if so, when these Popes spoke, surely they could not be upheld as infallible, could they?

The Church is careful to define certain conditions under which the Pope is infallible. Note that the Pope is not “impeccable”.

For the proper understanding of the dogma the following points must be noted:

1. 
   *] The bearer of the Infallibility is every lawful Pope as successor of Peter [cannot be delegated]
   *] The object of the Infallibility is his teaching concerning Faith and Morals, above all revealed teaching, but also non-revealed teachings, which are closely associated with the teachings of Revelation
   *] The condition of Infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required:
   • 
     *] That he speak as pastor and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his supreme apostolic authority; if he speaks as a private theologian or as the bishop of his Diocese, he is not infallible
     *] That he have the intention of deciding finally a teaching of Faith or Morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. Without this intention, which must be made clear … ex cathedra is not complete. Most of the doctrinal expressions made by the Popes in their Encyclicals are not decisions ex cathedra.
     
     *] The source of his Infallibility is the supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost, Who protects the supreme teacher of the Church from error. This must be distinguished from Revelation … and from Inspiration … The Holy Ghost preserves the bearer of the supreme teaching office from a false decision …
     
     Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (p.287)
     Ludwig Ott
     
     hurst

 

[Gareth]

Thanks Hurst, great answer, I’ve saved that for further reference.

Are the Imaculate Conception and the Assumption considered ex cathedra?

Cheers
Gareth

 

[hurst]

Gareth:

Are the Imaculate Conception and the Assumption considered ex cathedra?

Yes.

Regarding the Immaculate Conception:

The radiant crown of glory with which the most pure brow of the Virgin Mother was encircled by God, seems to Us to shine more brilliantly, as We recall to mind the day, on which, one hundred years ago, Our Predecessor of happy memory Pius IX, surrounded by a vast retinue of Cardinals and Bishops, with infallible apostolic authority defined, pronounced and solemnly sanctioned “that the doctrine, which holds that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary at the first moment of her conception was, by singular grace and privilege of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the Human race, preserved from all stains of original sin, is revealed by God, and therefore to be firmly and resolutely believed by all the faithful.” (Dogmatic bull Ineffabilis Deus, of Dec. 8, 1854.)

FULGENS CORONA
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
PROCLAIMING A MARIAN YEAR TO COMMEMORATE THE CENTENARY OF THE DEFINITION OF THE
DOGMA OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_08091953_fulgens-corona_en.html

Regarding the Assumption:

1. … the bodily Assumption of God’s Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church’s ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.(6) Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth,(7) and therefore absolutely without error, carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them. For, as the Vatican Council teaches, “the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith.”(8) Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church’s ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, “all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed.”(9)
   …
2. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS
DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

hurst

 

[Subrosa]

Kendy:

Well, we believe that the mission of the apostles is passed on to all of us through the aspostles. We certainly do a lot of laying of hands in my church. And there are other people in the book of acts who exercised authority, like Junius (sp), Priscilla who are not one of the original apostles.

Kendy

Hi again, Kendy -

It is good that you are digging for information. Finding different perspectives brings the seeker to the truth, eventually. On to your questions!

Well, we believe that the mission of the apostles is passed on to all of us through the apostles. (spelling corrected)

This is simply unbiblical, as has been shown here on this thread. This belief has it’s origin in the reformation of the middle ages. There are no churches that were established by the apostles that believe or practice this.

These apostolic churches carry on the Traditions of the apostles. Christ’s church is hierarchical.

We certainly do a lot of laying of hands in my church.

This can be a good thing. What is it that you practice this for? Any particular functions?

And there are other people in the book of acts who exercised authority, like Junius (sp), Priscilla who are not one of the original apostles.

Junius Gallio was a Roman proconsul. (Acts 18:12) He was a judge that sat for an indefinate period of time. His authority was political, not related to the church in any way. Please reference Romans 13:1-7 for an understanding of his authority.

Are you suggesting that Junius had any church authority wahtsoever? He wasn’t even christian!

Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned several times (Acts 18:18-19, 26; Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19). They are mentioned by Paul as companions and coworkers and they most certainly had a great deal of knowledge concerning Christ and His gospel. However, there is no mention of them having thier own ministry with any authority. They are mentioned only as companions to Paul. No doubt, they were teachers and carried some weight because of thier knowledge.

Priscilla could not have any apostolic authority because there were no women that Jesus gave such authority to. Aquila is mentioned along with her and were most likely a married couple that accompanied Paul in his ministry. They were simply assistants to him.

Make no mistake, Kendy, there are people who are very important to Christ and His church, but the do not have the authority given to the apostles. We al do our part.

Subrosa

 

[Subrosa]

Kendy:

So, how are we to view these churches? Why should I not join Mark’s church? Why follow Peter instead of Mark? What if I just leave all of you and just follow Jesus in whose name I was baptized?

Kendy

Hi Kendy -

I hope you’re reading and understanding these posts, and also soaking them up, for none portray any falseness.

How about we address these questions you’ve posted. I am the one who brought them to you, so it is only fitting that I answer them. Here goes!

So, how are we to view these churches?

Just for reference, I’ll post them again…

Peter’s successors cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/CFPtoc.htm
sor.cua.edu/Patriarchate/Pat…sChronList.html

Mark’s successors stmarycoptorthodox.org/patriarchs.htm

Andrew’s successors
ec-patr.gr/en/list/default.htm

Apostle Thomas
acns.com/~mm9n/marthoma/marthoma.htm
and AD 52

James, the Lord’s brother
nasrani-patriarchate.org/eng/

These churches are all apostolic in thier nature, that is to say that each was founded by an apostle. They all teach about 90%(+ -) of the same thing theologically. Mostly the differences are cultural. Seethe second link I posted under Peter? That’s the church he founded in the bible. It still exists!

Why should I not join Mark’s church?

The issue with most of these churches is that they are commited nationally. That is to say that they belong to certain nationalities or cultures. Mark established his churches in Egypt and surrounding areas. They are known as the Coptic church. These national churches have branches in the USA, but mostly serve the nationalistic communities that they are from.

continued…

 

[Subrosa]

Why follow Peter instead of Mark?

The Roman Catholic Church has been seen by the other churches through the ages as the pre-eminant church, although, as I said, some do not accept the Pope as supreme bishop, they have traditionally defered to Rome for decisions of church matters.

An example - Two churches… the Chaldean Church and the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East needed an issue solved. These two churches were at one time one church. The Chaldean Church split from the Assyrian Church centuries ago. They do, however, practice the same Traditions. An issue arose during the Iraq war in which these parishoners were being forced out of thier communities by the majority Muslim population. They wanted to be able to go into each others church in order to participate in the liturgy because they were unable to go to thier own churches. Since they were not in communion with each other, they needed a higher authority to make the decision for them. Enter the Catholic Church.

Here is the decision of the Catholic Church concerning these two smaller churches…
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

The two churches…
byzantines.net/epiphany/chaldean.htm
cired.org/ace.html

They came to the Catholic Church to solve thier problem. This is the Traditional position of Rome because Peter, the head of the Apostles was martyred there and the responsiblities and authority of Peter fell upon Rome.

Additionally, Rome is a universal church. It exists for all people throughout the world, not just Italy. All comers are welcome (as in the other churches also). The issue lies with whether or not you are willing to accept the Pope, Peter’s successor as the Rock in which Jesus built His church. It is a bone of contention, I’ll give you that.

What if I just leave all of you and just follow Jesus in whose name I was baptized?

You will find Jesus if you choose that path. You will also find Purgatory.

What you will be lacking is the fullness of Christ in the Eucharist and the rest of His sacraments. You can never partake of His spiritual Body and Blood, the nurishment that only He can provide. You can never know if you have been forgiven of your sins, for only in the apostolic churches, there lies the Sacrament of Reconciliation. This does not exist in protestantism You can never know that the Spirit has befallen you because do not have the Sacrament of Confirmation. All of the apostolic churches carry these sacraments. No protestant church can claim any of these, not fully.

I hope you undestand what is posted here, for it is Christ’s love and His expectation of me to tell you the truth.

Subrosa

P.S. I just noticed that you said that you were raised Catholic. Did you receive Confirmation? If you did, then you have received the Spirit.

 

[Kendy]

**
You will find Jesus if you choose that path. You will also find Purgatory. **

Subrosa

P.S. I just noticed that you said that you were raised Catholic. Did you receive Confirmation? If you did, then you have received the Spirit.

Yes, I was confirmed. Are you saying that the best a faithful protestant can hope for is purgatory?

Kendy

 

[Orionthehunter]

Kendy:

Yes, I was confirmed. Are you saying that the best a faithful protestant can hope for is purgatory?

Kendy

For one to presume that we know where a particular soul will be initially “sent” upon death is presumptious. One would have to know all that God knows to know that.

Also, keep in mind, that any soul that goes to purgatory will ultimately reside in Heaven for eternity.

 

[St.Eric]

From everything I have read, and beleive, it sounds like the vast majority of us (regardless of denomination) will have a layover in Purgatory prior to getting to the final destination. It will be longer for some than it is for others but there is no way to know how long exactly the process will take.

 

[Subrosa]

Kendy:

Yes, I was confirmed. Are you saying that the best a faithful protestant can hope for is purgatory?

Kendy

That is up to God.

But, in MY opinion, yes. The best a faithful protestant can hope for is Purgatory. Why? Denial of certain truths that are taught by the Church. Remember, the Catholic Church maintains the teachings of the apostles, many of which are denied by protestanism. To deny these truths is to deny what the apostles taught. Did the apostles not know what they were talking about?

Also, the sacraments were left here by Jesus in order to give some assurance of salvation. Take the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) for instance. There are no protestants that can obtain it. You need a priest. Let’s see what Paul says about it…

Paul, in his 2nd letter to the Corinthians speaks about the “ministry of reconciliation”, chapter 5, verse 18. That proves that it is apostolic. In fact, he says Jesus gave us the ministry of reconciliation.

2 Cor 5:18 And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation

BTW, ministries are performed by ministers. Priests & bishops are ministers. Paul continues by saying that Christ entrusted us, meaning the apostles…

2 Cor 5:19 namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

Finally, Paul calls himself and the other ministers “ambassadors”…

2 Cor 5:20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Put it all together and you get “We were given the ministry of reconciliation by Christ who entrusted us and made us ambassadors for Him.” Key - Christ gave it to “Us”. “Us” is the apostles (John 20:23) who, as I’ve shown you, pass that authority onto other bishops, who then give it to presbyters (priests).

Not protestants.

When is the last time you went to Confession? It has been that long since you have had your sins forgiven in order to be reconciled with God (2 Cor 5:20). As long as you carry them, you are liable to Purgatory.

Subrosa