Binding/Loosing Sins- Excommunications

[Erick_Ybarra]

Hello everyone,

I was wondering what the Catholic Church has historically understood the passages dealing with the binding and loosing of sins.

If someone is excommunicated from the Catholic Church, does this mean that they are now condemned into hell unless they are restored to the Church?

In my case, I was excommunicated from my protestant church a couple of years ago, and I have tried to reconcile with them but they don’t believe I am really repentant, and so they have not restored me. I’ve tried a number of time, and perhaps I need more wisdom, but I think i’ve laid myself before them in repentance.

Does this mean that I am bound in my sin and guilt until the church remits me?
Now this protestant church believes that the binding/loosing function is merely declarative, it is not effectual. In other words, they do not believe in forgiving sins or binding men’s sin literally, but that they can no longer testify to that person’s salvation and so they are removed from the church.

In the case of my old protestant church, you may be thinking of the validity of their ordination. Well, they pastors there told me that the Holy Spirit chooses who is going to be in authority, and the with the people’s consent (congregations).

 

[OraLabora]

Excommunication does not remove you from the Catholic Church. It is a disciplinary action that deprives you of the sacraments.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

could you respond a bit on the issue of ordination in the protestant Church. This particular church was started by a seminarian (baptist) who planted the church back in 1995. Just two years ago, he was arrested for child molestation. Then the assistant pastor, who was ordained by the previous pastor (the one arrested) became the Senior Pastor and now ordained a new assistant Pastor.

How would a Catholic argue or disprove the validity of this type of ordination?

 

[Joe_5859]

In Catholic theology, the power of binding and loosing that Christ entrusted to the apostles and their successors refers more to the forgiveness of sins through the Sacrament of Reconciliation rather than excommunication per se.

Excommunication is not the Catholic Church condemning someone to hell that otherwise would go to heaven. It is a medicinal thing to show the person just how grave of a situation they have placed themselves in so that they might recognize their error and repent. The goal is repentance and forgiveness, not casting someone out.

The Catholic Church would not recognize a Protestant group’s authority to excommunicate.

If you want to know more about what the Catholic Church thinks about excommunication, you can check out the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article. That article was from 1909, and there was a new Code of Canon Law issued in 1917 and then again in 1983. So not all of it might be up-to-date, but the basic principles are the same.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

could you respond a bit on the issue of ordination in the protestant Church. This particular church was started by a seminarian (baptist) who planted the church back in 1995. Just two years ago, he was arrested for child molestation. Then the assistant pastor, who was ordained by the previous pastor (the one arrested) became the Senior Pastor and now ordained a new assistant Pastor.

How would a Catholic argue or disprove the validity of this type of ordination?

Well, for starters, I do not believe that the Catholic Church recognizes any protestant ordination as valid. Within their own churches they’re fine, but they are not capable of consecrating the Host for the Eucharist, so in our eyes, they’re barely a step above laymen. It’s kind of odd to be asking Catholics about Protestant ordination…

It’s also odd that you were ask Catholics about being excommunicated form a protestant church… since most protestant churches don’t practice confession or believe in teh true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, being excommunicated basically means you go find a new church.

For Catholics, it’s a different story. When excommunicated, a Catholic is still able to take part in the mass, but cannot receive the Eucharist. Since it is necessary for us to partake of the sacraments of the Eucharist, a person who is excommunicated and does not repent through the sacrament of reconciliation is essentially damning themselves by choosing to exist in a perpetual state of sin.

The church will gladly welcome back people who were excommunicated, so long as they repent and correct the error that got them excommunicated in the first place. It’s a teaching tool and, as stated, a medicinal tool to impress upon the individual that they have really, really screwed up.

 

[Joe_5859]

could you respond a bit on the issue of ordination in the protestant Church. This particular church was started by a seminarian (baptist) who planted the church back in 1995. Just two years ago, he was arrested for child molestation. Then the assistant pastor, who was ordained by the previous pastor (the one arrested) became the Senior Pastor and now ordained a new assistant Pastor.

How would a Catholic argue or disprove the validity of this type of ordination?

The Catholic Church holds that Apostolic Succession and the proper form is necessary for valid ordination. Most Protestant groups broke the line of Apostolic Succession at the time of the Reformation. No one can just pull out apostolic credentials from out of the blue.

 

[thistle]

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 19. And I will give to thee the keys, &c. This is another metaphor, expressing the supreme power and prerogative of the prince of the apostles. The keys of a city, or of its gates, are presented or given to the person that hath the chief power. We also own a power of the keys, given to the other apostles, but with a subordination to St. Peter and to his successor, as head of the Catholic Church. — And whatsoever thou shalt bind, &c. All the apostles, and their successors, partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to one head invested with the supreme power. (Witham) — Loose on earth. The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence: the power of which is here granted. (Challoner) — Although Peter and his successors are mortal, they are nevertheless endowed with heavenly power, says St. Chrysostom, nor is the sentence of life and death passed by Peter to be attempted to be reversed, but what he declares is to be considered a divine answer from heaven, and what he decrees, a decree of God himself. He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. **The power of binding is exercised, 1st. by refusing to absolve; 2nd. by enjoining penance for sins forgiven; 3nd. by excommunication, suspension or interdict; 4th. by making rules and laws for the government of the Church; 5th. by determining what is of faith by the judgments and definitions of the Church. (Tirinus) **— The terms binding and loosing, are equivalent to opening and shutting, because formerly the Jews opened the fastenings of their doors by untying it, and they shut or secured their doors by tying or binding it. (Bible de Vence) — Dr. Whitby, a learned Protestant divine, thus expounds this and the preceding verse: “As a suitable return to thy confession, I say also to thee, that thou art by name Peter, i.e. a rock; and upon thee, who art this rock, I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of making laws to govern my Church.” (Tom. i, p. 143.) Dr. Hammond, another Protestant divine, explains it in the same manner. And p. 92, he says: " What is here meant by the keys, is best understand by Isaias xxii. 22, where they signify ruling the whole family or house of the king: and this being by Christ accommodated to the Church, denotes the power of governing it."

 

[robwar]

Hello everyone,

I was wondering what the Catholic Church has historically understood the passages dealing with the binding and loosing of sins.

If someone is excommunicated from the Catholic Church, does this mean that they are now condemned into hell unless they are restored to the Church?

In my case, I was excommunicated from my protestant church a couple of years ago, and I have tried to reconcile with them but they don’t believe I am really repentant, and so they have not restored me. I’ve tried a number of time, and perhaps I need more wisdom, but I think i’ve laid myself before them in repentance.

Does this mean that I am bound in my sin and guilt until the church remits me?
Now this protestant church believes that the binding/loosing function is merely declarative, it is not effectual. In other words, they do not believe in forgiving sins or binding men’s sin literally, but that they can no longer testify to that person’s salvation and so they are removed from the church.

In the case of my old protestant church, you may be thinking of the validity of their ordination. Well, they pastors there told me that the Holy Spirit chooses who is going to be in authority, and the with the people’s consent (congregations).

Maybe this is a good time to look into the Catholic Church. Binding and loosing is understood by the Catholic Church as the authority given by Christ to Peter and the Apostles since it is right around the passage “on this rock, I will build my Church”. Ex-communication in the Catholic Church is not done lightly at all and is only used as a last resort and basically a disciplinary measure. Your former church is totally off on the interpretation and use of the above passage. They have no authority to tell you that you are bound to your sins and have not truly repented. Ordination in the Catholic church is done with the authority of the Church, it is not at all done like your previous church saying the Holy Spirit pick (whatever that means) and the people consent. You are welcome to come to the Catholic church and I hope that whatever happen in the past can be put behind you. You will be in my prayers.

 

[robwar]

Binding and loosing is also used in the understanding that Jesus gave the Church teaching authority. It has less to do with ex-communication.

 

[Nigel7]

In my case, I was excommunicated from my protestant church a couple of years ago, and I have tried to reconcile with them but they don’t believe I am really repentant, and so they have not restored me.

Now this protestant church believes that the binding/loosing function is merely declarative, it is not effectual. In other words, they do not believe in forgiving sins or binding men’s sin literally, but that they can no longer testify to that person’s salvation and so they are removed from the church.

In the case of my old protestant church, you may be thinking of the validity of their ordination. Well, they pastors there told me that the Holy Spirit chooses who is going to be in authority, and the with the people’s consent (congregations).

Read your post. Your answer is there. So what if these pastors (for whatever reason) say that they supposedly “can no longer testify” to your personal salvation. They can’t take Christ’s teachings literally, as you said, because they have no authority. These pastors are making it up as they go and then applying their personal judgements about the forgiveness of sin to you. It’s protestantism. Just go find another church.
I suggest that you take a serious look into Roman/Latin Catholicism and read about apostolic succession and valid orders and the sacraments, the sacrament of reconciliation, etc…

You could begin here > > catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

God bless

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

So if a protestant minister says the Holy Spirit chose him through the congregation, and points to the faith, hope, and love of the people as proof of God raising up a Shepherd for the flock, how would we specifically argue against this?

 

[Sirach2]

That’s heresy. The “shepherd” is not the one who effects sanctification in any of his members. The members become holy because of their free will exercise in following Christ, the Shepherd and cooperating with the graces of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JRKH]

So if a protestant minister says the Holy Spirit chose him through the congregation, and points to the faith, hope, and love of the people as proof of God raising up a Shepherd for the flock, how would we specifically argue against this?

I’m no authority on this but to me this would testify to the man perhaps being called to preaching, but not to the office of ministerial priesthood - thus no “ordination” occurs.
A Lay Catholic might feel a call to preaching…to evangelization etc, and choose to teach, to preach to write to testify to be a spiritual director etc, but would not be able to confect the Eucharist…just as a protestant pastor is unable to confect the Eucharist.

Ordination since the earliest days has always come through the bishops in unbroken line from Jesus to the Apostles to the successors of the Apostles by the laying on of hands.
Protestant pastors claimed ordination does not have this essential element.

As to the matter of a call that is approved by the congregation…There is precedent for this in the early Church where the people would select their next bishop or whatever. But that person would then seek out another, bishop for ordination. Thus the line remained intact.

Peace
James

 

[robwar]

So if a protestant minister says the Holy Spirit chose him through the congregation, and points to the faith, hope, and love of the people as proof of God raising up a Shepherd for the flock, how would we specifically argue against this?

look at Acts, those who were put as a minister was done so with laying on of hands by the apostles. It was never done by someone saying the Holy Spirit chose him. How do you know what he is saying is true? How does he know it is the Holy Spirit. that is the problem with this type of protestantism, it is done by someone whim and then they claim it was the Holy Spirit
and everyone accepts this without questioning it. he has no authority from anyone, it is made up in his head and someone like this is using spiritual talk to manipulate others like you. It is sad but again use this to study and come home to the Catholic Church.

 

[Sirach2]

As to the matter of a call that is approved by the congregation…There is precedent for this in the early Church where the people would select their next bishop or whatever. But that person would then seek out another, **bishop **for ordination. Thus the line remained intact.

Are you saying that a bishop was chosen by popular demand? Even if these were selected by prophesy and prayer, it would require another bishop to impose hands in ordination, as you mentioned. The lawful succession.

Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood. 1 Timothy 4:14]

 

[JRKH]

Are you saying that a bishop was chosen by popular demand?

Yes - I believe this is even mentioned by St Paul in one of his letters…About choosing leadership from among the Congregation.
Also - I seem to recall a story of the People of Rome having trouble selecting a new bishop (Pope) when a Dove landed on the head of a young priest who had just happened to come to the city that day. The People immediately proclaimed it a sign and made selected him as bishop…
Perhaps someone else can clarify that.

Even if these were selected by prophesy and prayer, it would require another bishop to impose hands in ordination, as you mentioned. The lawful succession.

Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood. 1 Timothy 4:14]

Indeed. Even today the selection of Bishops comes by - as you say - prophesy and prayer, just not in the same form as in ancient times.
And yes - absolutely there must be the proper form of ordination.

Peace
James

 

[Richca]

Hello everyone,

I was wondering what the Catholic Church has historically understood the passages dealing with the binding and loosing of sins.

If someone is excommunicated from the Catholic Church, does this mean that they are now condemned into hell unless they are restored to the Church?

Hi Erick,
The binding and loosening of sins is closely connected with the Church’s doctrine on the “Power of the Keys” given to Peter in Matthew 16:19. Though the “Power of the Keys” doctrine is wider in scope than what all priests share in common with the Pope in forgiving the sins of penitents in the sacrament of confession.

I would say that the salvation of an unrepentant person who has been excommunicated from the Catholic Church is in serious, extremely serious jeopardy. For the Church possesses the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Jesus Christ alone is the judge of every person at death but he has given to the Church the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

We know that peter was given the role of being the ‘‘rock’’ of Christs church and that this is described as binding and loosing powers that is inherent in possessing the keys to the doors of Gods kingdom.
The main question is does this power retain only in peter and no other person? If it is to be possessed by others, by what means?
We read later that the ‘‘church’’ has the power of the keys (binding/loosing abilities) which seems to be a wider structure than peter as an individual. Lets say this Church is referring to local bodies in each city. It is not a wild thought that Jesus taught Matthew 18 while doddering the spread of various churches in the world. If we grant this, then the power of the keys is in the hands of church clergy, bishops.

Since the first few centuries of the church consisted of many fellowships across the board of the world who had no contact with peters successors in Rome, how could they possess the power of the keys? And If in some cases, bishops were ordained by their congregations, how do they retain succession?

 

[Sirach2]

The main question is does this power retain only in peter and no other person? If it is to be possessed by others, by what means?

You are mistaking the power of the keys with binding and loosing power that priests have in hearing confessions, although this also belongs to the Magisterium. Peter was not the sole apostle invested with Christ’s power of infallibility, but also his lawfully elected successors (popes) throughout Church history. I thought we had gone over this repeatedly in Apologetics? Where do you come up with these ideas, especially since you were raised Catholic?

 

[JerryZ]

Hello everyone,

I was wondering what the Catholic Church has historically understood the passages dealing with the binding and loosing of sins.

If someone is excommunicated from the Catholic Church, does this mean that they are now condemned into hell unless they are restored to the Church?

In my case, I was excommunicated from my protestant church a couple of years ago, and I have tried to reconcile with them but they don’t believe I am really repentant, and so they have not restored me. I’ve tried a number of time, and perhaps I need more wisdom, but I think i’ve laid myself before them in repentance.

Does this mean that I am bound in my sin and guilt until the church remits me?
Now this protestant church believes that the binding/loosing function is merely declarative, it is not effectual. In other words, they do not believe in forgiving sins or binding men’s sin literally, but that they can no longer testify to that person’s salvation and so they are removed from the church.

In the case of my old protestant church, you may be thinking of the validity of their ordination. Well, they pastors there told me that the Holy Spirit chooses who is going to be in authority, and the with the people’s consent (congregations).

how convenient, I guess that was what Jesus told His disceples “Ask the congregation if they approve you!”
Really?

Read the Bible in:

Jeremiah 17:23 But they hearkened not, neither inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff, that they might not hear, and might not receive instruction.

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye

Seem we repeat our errors over and over, aren’t we lucky our God had infinite pacience?
Let’s hope we don’t fill His cup