H
Hegesippus
Guest
Do schismatic bishops retain the authority of binding and loosing?
- Status
C
Chipper
Guest
This authority was given singularly to St. Peter, and as a group to the rest of the apostles. Since the schismatics have broken away from the group then they no longer participate in this authority
At least that’s my take on it.
Chipper
G
gelsbern
Guest
The authority was FIRST given to Peter and later was given to ALL the apostles.
ALL of the sacraments were given by Christ to the Apostles, the FIRST bishops, and through the succession ALL bishops, even those not in union with Rome have full authority to confect ALL the sacraments including absolution at confession.
At least that is my take on it. And I wonder how Jesus Himself would view it in light of the following passage. Comments added by me are in blue.
Therefore bishops retain the authority even if not in union with the see of Peter. However this debate has gone on for a long long time, but the sacraments come from Christ, to the bishops through apostolic succession, or if you prefer episcopal lineage (which I think is an improper term but that’s for a different topic).
ALL of the sacraments were given by Christ to the Apostles, the FIRST bishops, and through the succession ALL bishops, even those not in union with Rome have full authority to confect ALL the sacraments including absolution at confession.
At least that is my take on it. And I wonder how Jesus Himself would view it in light of the following passage. Comments added by me are in blue.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Binding and Loosing in the effects of distributing Sacraments? Yes, unless they been ex-communicated by the Holy See.
Binding and Loosing in the effects of gathering with other Schismatic Bishops to define a Church Doctrine? No.
Binding and Loosing in the effects of gathering with other Schismatic Bishops to define a Church Doctrine? No.
N
Nicene
Guest
Isn’t that adding to scripture? After all in the above passage Christ does not confer any authority on the person in question he just says “whoever is not against us is for us”
By the same token given above it seems appropriate to give those same binding and loosing priveliges to any christian denomination, even mormons etc. After all they all began from the catholic church (some via protestantism). From this arguement it appears this ability cannot be lost. They all began from the same catholic roots no matter how far they have gone astray.
Logically, from the above arguement, that must be ones take on it.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
G
gelsbern
Guest
No I am not adding to scripture, which is why I specified that I put my own personal comment in blue. But perhaps it was a bit confusing to do so and I probably shouldn’t.
Christ does not stop the person, if you are not prohibited, then that must mean you are allowed and thereby have the authority. I mean it’s the argument used all the time by those who do the orans position during the our father as well as any other new and innovative wacky things they are doing inside the modern catholic churches these days.
I am talking about groups who have bishops with valid episcopal lineages, and there are a LOT of groups who have valid bishops with valid lineages. The one you have mentioned doesn’t and there are a lot of groups that don’t. I think we all agree that to confect the sacrament one must be validly ordained by a bishop with valid episcopal lineage.
At any rate, I don’t want to continue in an argument like this. I posted my view point on it, and I don’t want to turn this into a debate with my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.
The pope in reference to the East and West said the Church breathes with 2 lungs. well lungs aren’t smooth bags of flesh, here’s all kind of little tiny branches in there who all connect back to the airway. I just pray that eventually Rome will see this and realize we are just all part of the same set of lungs.
Peace and God Bless you,
C
Chipper
Guest
Furthermore, this would be an illogical consequence.
The schismatics might try to “Bind and Loose” something contradictory to the original apostles intent for “Binding and Loosing”.
So which dogma would get “Bounded and Loosed”, given that the two could be contradictory? This is why I don’t believe that the schismatics retain that authority. It would be illogical.
Chipper
G
gelsbern
Guest
It this case we are talking about the absolution of sins. You will find very few “schismatic” bishops (there are a few nutcases) who stray far from the teachings of the church prior to Vatican I. After Vatican I and especially after Vatican II is where you will find most (not all) of the “schismatic” groups sprouted up. Yes, the group I belong to has broken away from Rome, but we have not broken away from what was taught by the church prior to Vatican I and we don’t exclude everything that came out of Vatican I or Vatican II, but we believe and we have been told that all of our sacraments are indeed valid although to Rome they are not licit. We don’t encourage Roman catholics to join us, in fact we warn them of the fact that we are not in union with Rome.
To summarize, the power to forgive sins came from Jesus to the bishops and that in turn got passed down from bishop to bishop. Rome is the only one to say that you need authority from her for absolution, but don’t need it for other sacraments to be valid. Seems to me that that is putting a human limitation on a power given to the apostles by Jesus and passed down through episcopal lineage.
C
Chipper
Guest
Hmmm very interesting.
It seems to me that this is proposing a conflict for “Binding and Loosing”. Since you have your group essentially trying to “Bind and Loose” an authority to themselves, and then we have Rome “Binding and Loosing” in a different direction.
Remember the authority to Bind and Loose was given as a group, not as individuals. So when individuals break away from a group, then why should these individuals retain the group given authority?
Regards,
Chipper
H
Hegesippus
Guest
If going by this logic, than the Orthodox would not have valid sacraments, but the Catholic Church does indeed recognize that their sacraments are valid.
T
twf
Guest
The Eastern Orthodox bishops, from a Catholic perspective, do indeed have the power to validly administer the sacraments (including absolution). So the poster who suggested that direct permission from Rome is necessary for a valid absolution is wrong.
C
Chipper
Guest
Oh now I see where you’re coming from. I didn’t think “Binding and Loosing” had anything to do with providing valid sacraments. It seems to me that these are two different categories.
“Binding and Loosing” is an authority to define Doctrine and Dogma. For instance my Priest has the authority to confer the sacraments, but he doesn’t have the authority to declare doctrine and dogma of the Catholic church.
Regards,
Chipper
T
twf
Guest
Chipper: No, binding and loosing does refer to the authority to teach and to impose disciplines, but it also refers to the authority to forgive sin and assign penances. Thus your priest does share in the power of binding and loosing. As far as teaching and imposing disciplines are concerned, however, he shares in the bishop’s power, and does not hold the fulness of this authority.
- Status