Catholic vs protestant

[TomH1]

But the sacrament remains a valid one

No, that’s not correct. Priests cannot simply administer all the sacraments just because of their sacerdotal ordination. If you are married by a Catholic priest who is not delegated to assist at marriages your marriage is invalid. A priest cannot grant absolution unless the Church has given him the faculties to do so. So, yes, when a priest administers a sacrament he ought not to administer he acts illicitly. If he also lacks the necessary faculties his actions are also invalid.

 

[GKMotley]

The faculties are the difference between validity and liciety, other sacramental faculties assumed to be valid (form, matter, intent, recipient).

 

[TomH1]

The faculties are the difference between validity and liciety

No, they are not.

For example: If a Catholic man marries using the current liturgical Rite of Marriage, in a Catholic church and if the priest who presides and witnesses the marriage is not delegated to assist at marriages or is not delegated for that marriage the marriage will be invalid not just illicit.

other sacramental faculties assumed to be valid (form, matter, intent, recipient).

These are not faculties. They are requirements for every sacrament, and you missed one: the recipient must be able to receive that sacrament. Faculties, which are properly called jurisdiction, is the Church giving a priest the necessary authority to administer a sacrament. Of the sacraments that are frequently administered the Church has said that for validity marriage and penance require the priest has the necessary jurisdiction granted to him. His sacred orders alone are not enough.

 

[GKMotley]

I beg your pardon. It’s been a rough morning. The word “faculties” in “other sacramental…” was an odd, unconscious substitution for the word “factors”. Sacramental factors. The use of the word “recipient”, as in assuming a valid recipient, meant just what you said. A valid recipient of the sacrament of orders cannot be a female, for example.

As to the valid/licit point, I still do not think we are communicating.The analogy is of the functioning of a bishop, if validly consecrated. A validly consecrated bishop may convey the sacrament of orders, for example, validly, though not licitly, even if he is declared heretical, schismatic, simonistic or excommunicated (Ott), p. 458).

 

[Justin_Mary]

We don’t do anything to earn it, we choose to accept it… once we accept it its is ours until we refuse it, deny it or reject it.

& therefore lose it.

I think what we have here is a case of semantics. Sort of saying the same thing in different ways. When you’ve turned to God & walk in friendship with him I think is akin to your definition of Salvation. This humble existence with God puts you on the path towards eternal life.

When you reject God’s wisdom & decide to walk your own path, you are on the road to eternal suffering. For all intents & purposes we say you have lost your salvation. If you were to die in this condition you will suffer for all eternity.

In either case, God loves you & never for one moment did he not love you. He is ready to take you back. He is constantly pouring his Mercy out to you. But if you never turn back, you’ve condemned yourself to hell. Lost your salvation.

 

[TomH1]

As to the valid/licit point, I still do not think we are communicating.The analogy is of the functioning of a bishop, if validly consecrated. A validly consecrated bishop may convey the sacrament of orders, for example, validly, though not licitly, even if he is declared heretical, schismatic, simonistic or excommunicated (Ott), p. 458).

Yes, he can. That is because some sacraments can be administered simply because one is a bishop, priest or deacon, and, in a limited number of cases, by a layman. A cleric’s ordination is enough. For example, a priest can baptise and celebrate Mass validly just because he is a priest.

However, there are some sacraments that require both the power of orders, i.e. one is ordained, and jurisdiction, commonly referred to as faculties, to be valid. Marriage and penance are two examples.

A priest cannot absolve a person’s sins unless he is both a priest and has faculties from his ordinary. If he lacks the latter if he says over a penitent ‘Ego te absolvo/I absolve you …’ the sacrament is invalid, it does not happen, the person is not absolved.

Similarly, if a priest officiates at a marriage and he does not have the jurisdiction granted by Canon Law, for example, he is the parish priest of the place, or granted by his ordinary the marriage is not just illicit. It is invalid. It has not happened. The couple are not married.

 

[GKMotley]

This is making progress.

The priest not being the sacramental minister in the sacrament of matrimony had seemed to me to suggest a slightly different function of the priest. Absolution is one that I theoretically see a point (I think).

Is there an analog in Ott, for explication, as with the bishop? Or an analog to Ott? Especially on absolution?

 

[TomH1]

The priest not being the sacramental minister in the sacrament of matrimony had seemed to me to suggest a slightly different function of the priest.

OK, perhaps marriage is not the best example. After all the priest is not the one who administers the sacrament. So, let’s focus solely on absolution.

The pope has the jurisdiction to absolve anyone, anywhere and at any time. Cardinals are given the faculty to absolve anyone, anywhere and at any time. Bishops who are not cardinals also have the faculty to absolve anyone, anywhere and at any time. However, there is a possible restriction. A bishop cannot absolve if he is in the diocese of another bishop and the bishop of the diocese says the other bishop cannot exercise this faculty in his diocese.

A priest is given the faculty to absolve from his ordinary. This will be his diocesan bishop or if he’s a religious priest his major superior. Once granted the faculty the priest can exercise it anywhere and at any time. However, a bishop can say you cannot exercise the faculty in my diocese.

In some cases the law itself grants a priest faculties, for example, to absolve someone who is dying and that faculty is even granted to those who are no longer allowed to exercise their priestly ministry.

So for a bishop or a priest to absolve someone from their sins he must be ordained as a priest and the Church must have granted him faculties. If a priest does not have faculties he cannot absolve you. Ordination alone is insufficient.

 

[GKMotley]

Amazingly, this is not far off what I have thought for years, based on years of reading in the general area.

I hesitate to contemplate it further, for fear of disturbing the sudden calm.

 

[TomH1]

I am pleased you feel it is cleared up for you.

 

[GKMotley]

Perhaps not the phrase I would use, but I thank you for what you have offered.

 

[TomH1]

Then I am afraid I am unable to assist you further. I cannot see what is difficult about it. All I could possibly do is cite you the relevant canon and what the commentators say on it.

 

[Horton]

Well, i may be having trouble explaining the difference between OSAS and not. Do you then say there are no conditions to be met after water baptism to be “saved” ? I think OSAS teaches that all conditions will be met by His grace and love working in us, even in our will, such as perseverance, repentance as needed, works as fruits, etc.,etc.

It is not conditional in the way you are intending to make it sound. We are given the gift of salvation through faith from God, it is up to us to accept that gift and up to us to keep the gift. It’s not as though there is a list of checkboxes that needs to met when we reach heaven. We are given all the tools we need to reach eternal life with God, it is up to us to use them.

That is not the same thing as OSAS.

But you are correct, that in the past such a stance was taken as a “misunderstanding”. It was said that to say, “the Pope in himself was infallible” (in teaching) was “an invention of Protestants, that it is no article of faith”…of course then came 1870, first Vatican, defining such infallibility as article of faith…( from Lives of Popes, by M.Walsh)

Being publicly declared as a teaching and it being a teaching are not the same thing. Very often these thing get declared publicly because of a lack of understanding such as the Protestant misunderstanding of Papal Infallibility. The Catholic Church taught it long before 1870. It actually comes from the 13th century.

You are confusing two very different ideas.

 

[Horton]

Then why would someone who turned to God, his whole life turn from Him seconds before he dies

Because we are fallen humans. We are mere mortals and we screw up. Again this is a problem of so many of these recent storefront non-denominational let’s make it up as we go along type “churches”. They want to believe God is all about sunshine & fairy dust & rainbow unicorns flying through the sky. That they can do whatever feels good to them and God is just going to love them bunches. Same sex marriage? Wonderful! Sex outside of marriage? Wonderful! Living together without marriage? Wonderful! Multiple marriages and divorces? Wonderful! Abortion? Wonderful! Whatever makes YOU feel good is Right. God loves you man!

***HUGE DISCLAIMER - I am NOT saying all Protestant faith traditions. In fact I know most of the mainline known traditions are nothing like this so please don’t come back with each individual church saying “we’re not like that”.

But this is NOT God or his love for us. God gives us a very clear guide on how he wants us to live. Jesus gave us His Church to help us understand this guide through Tradition and the Magisterium. There is a hell. We know how one gets to hell. We know how one avoids hell. We also know how we can be happy, have joy, and yes, some fairy dust and sunshine. We know there is objective right and we know there is objective wrong. We also know this does not change with societal trends.

God gives us free will to choose what type of life we want. He will never stop wanting us, loving us, or seeking us. God also will not let us choose which of his commands to follow.

 

[mcq72]

Very often these thing get declared publicly because of a lack of understanding such as the Protestant misunderstanding of Papal Infallibility.

Well the entire point from Mike Walsh in his book is that Catholics misunderstood, and Protestants had it more right before 1870…Catholics were saying papal infallibility was a Protestant invention…even you say it comes from 13th century.

You are confusing two very different ideas.

I don’t think so.

 

[MichaelP3]

It actually comes from the 13th century.

By using simple math one can notice that is a very long time after Jesus. Makes one think doesn’t it?

 

[GKMotley]

And you have my appreciation for your participation.

 

[Horton]

Well the entire point from Mike Walsh in his book is that Catholics misunderstood, and Protestants had it more right before 1870…Catholics were saying papal infallibility was a Protestant invention…even you say it comes from 13th century

Ok Here is a link to what & when on Papal Infallibility. You can choose to believe it or not but I’m done trying to debate this with an anti-Catholic protestant.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

I don’t think so.

I do.

By using simple math one can notice that is a very long time after Jesus. Makes one think doesn’t it?

Read the above link. It lays it all out.

 

[Mishakel]

Bringing popcorn

There are too many small differences to hammer out in a thread like this. Forget about the big theological differences like mass, real presence, the entire Maryology, and all the broad or higher level differences.

The personal difference is Catholics live their entire life unsure if they will make it to Heaven. Protestants live their lives with a reassurance they are part of the elect and their eternity is secure because of their faith that Christ died for their sins and not because of any act or work they perform as a human.

Each side will present theologies as to (why) they believe the way they do but I think Paul sums it up in Romans 5:1. “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,”

If we stood in life a condemned sinner we wouldn’t have peace with God.

This to me is the biggest personal difference between a Catholic and a Protestant.

 

[mcq72]

Ok Here is a link to what & when on Papal Infallibility.

Yes, thank you…again I was mostly speaking about declared Church inerrancy in decreed dogmas, as in ORAR.