Certain Catholic doctrines

[Wesley7]

What’s with certain doctrines like '“in persona christi” or “alter christus”? huh? . .

 

[Not_Sure_1]

They both refer to the role of the priest. For example, In persona Christi refers to the Priest in confession. He acts in the person of Christ, showing that it is Christ that is forgiving your sins, and the priest is only the instrument.

Alter Christi shows the Priest as another Christ (he is married to the Church, must be male, absolves sins). Someone can probably explain it better than me, but the priest has the many of the powers of Christ through ordination. Christ gave all his apostles the power to bind and loose sins, and so all priests have that power, from apostolic succession.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

What’s with certain doctrines like '“in persona christi” or “alter christus”? huh? . .

Hope this helps:

The one priesthood of Christ

1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men."15 The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High,” as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique “high priest after the order of Melchizedek”;16 "holy, blameless, unstained,"17 "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,"18 that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."19

Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ

1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."21

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit–, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

In the person of Christ the Head . . .

1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:23

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).24

Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ.25

1549 Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops and priests, the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers.26 In the beautiful expression of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop is typos tou Patros: he is like the living image of God the Father.27

1550 This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister’s sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church.

1551 This priesthood is ministerial. "That office . . . which the Lord committed to the pastors of his people, is in the strict sense of the term a service."28 It is entirely related to Christ and to men. It depends entirely on Christ and on his unique priesthood; it has been instituted for the good of men and the communion of the Church. The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a “sacred power” which is none other than that of Christ. The exercise of this authority must therefore be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made himself the least and the servant of all.29 "The Lord said clearly that concern for his flock was proof of love for him."30

. . . “in the name of the whole Church”

1552 The ministerial priesthood has the task not only of representing Christ - Head of the Church - before the assembly of the faithful, but also of acting in the name of the whole Church when presenting to God the prayer of the Church, and above all when offering the Eucharistic sacrifice.31

1553 “In the name of the whole Church” does not mean that priests are the delegates of the community. The prayer and offering of the Church are inseparable from the prayer and offering of Christ, her head; it is always the case that Christ worships in and through his Church. The whole Church, the Body of Christ, prays and offers herself “through him, with him, in him,” in the unity of the Holy Spirit, to God the Father. The whole Body, caput et membra, prays and offers itself, and therefore those who in the Body are especially his ministers are called ministers not only of Christ, but also of the Church. It is because the ministerial priesthood represents Christ that it can represent the Church.

Pax,
OA

 

[BertBlyleven]

This book is on my mind because I read it recently, and I’m sure there are much better sources, but Bp. Fulton Sheen’s The Priest is not his own details much of these doctrines in a priest’s day-to-day life without explaining the history or theology of these uniquely Roman beliefs; practical as opposed to ideal, if you will. They coincide with the Roman Catholic sacrficial theology of the Mass, as well.

In persona Christi shapes Roman views on confession as well; as I understand in the East, you confess to God with the priest as a witness, so to speak. I don’t want to err the Roman view as to whether the priest absolves on behalf of God or God absolves through the priest, but you definitely confess to the priest.

I’d like to know more on the history of these beliefs too, if anyone can recommend some sources I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

This book is on my mind because I read it recently, and I’m sure there are much better sources, but Bp. Fulton Sheen’s The Priest is not his own details much of these doctrines in a priest’s day-to-day life without explaining the history or theology of these uniquely Roman beliefs; practical as opposed to ideal, if you will. They coincide with the Roman Catholic sacrficial theology of the Mass, as well.

In persona Christi shapes Roman views on confession as well; as I understand in the East, you confess to God with the priest as a witness, so to speak. I don’t want to err the Roman view as to whether the priest absolves on behalf of God or God absolves through the priest, but you definitely confess to the priest.

I’d like to know more on the history of these beliefs too, if anyone can recommend some sources I would greatly appreciate it.

Roman Rite:

through the ministry of the Church
may God give you pardon and peace,
**and I absolve you from your sins**
in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.

Pax,
OA

 

[MarkThompson]

As I have remarked in a different context in a different thread,
if anybody needs the actual answer as to why the priest is alter Christus at Mass, it is because the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the selfsame expiatory sacrifice of Christ that took place at Calvary, but only Christ is able to immolate himself, and only a self-immolation can be expiatory in effect. Thus, if what is going on down the road at St. Suburbia’s on Sunday morning is the one true sacrifice of Christ, then it must be Christ himself who is there offering it.

 

[Chatter163]

What’s with certain doctrines like '“in persona christi” or “alter christus”? huh? . .

What exactly does the expression “what’s with” mean in this context? It sounds less than polite. :tiphat:

 

[Wesley7]

What exactly does the expression “what’s with” mean in this context? It sounds less than polite. :tiphat:

It would seem that in Catholicism certain kinds of doctrine are fanciful or “innovative novelties” . . IMO

 

[Cristiano]

It would seem that in Catholicism certain kinds of doctrine are fanciful or “innovative novelties” . . IMO

The way you are still presenting things does not sound too polite because it gives the impression of innuendos. “Innovative novelties” what does it mean?

If you have an honest question in order to understand what the teaching is please leave out the qualifiers, if you have a critique please make it in a rational manner and please leave out the qualifiers.

 

[TimothyH]

The way you are still presenting things does not sound too polite because it gives the impression of innuendos. “Innovative novelties” what does it mean?

If you have an honest question in order to understand what the teaching is please leave out the qualifiers, if you have a critique please make it in a rational manner and please leave out the qualifiers.

With all due respect to the original poster, I agree.

Asking questions with “What’s up with that?” and qualifiying centuries old doctrines and beliefs which have been scrutinized by some of the greatest theologians and philosophers our world has ever known hardly warrants the qualifier “Innovative novelties.” Ours isn’t a religion which came out of a comic book.

There are many other belief systems which could be characterized as innovative and novel than those of the two thousand year old Catholic Church and the Jewish religion which preceeded it.

If the OP has a specific question about where the doctrines in question first appeared, the basis for belief in those doctrines, or has a challenge to those beliefs, I wish he would ask it simply and clearly.

-Tim-

 

[TrueLight]

It would seem that in Catholicism certain kinds of doctrine are fanciful or “innovative novelties” . . IMO

Am I misreading this or is this a “diss”?

Maybe this should be in “non-Catholic religions”.

 

[MikeDunphy]

“Who can forgive sins but God alone?” But consider what our Lord said to His Apostles: Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” [John 20:21-23]

And at the Institution of the Eucharist, He told His Apostles “do this in remembrance of me”. [Luke 22:19] How can they? Who has the power to turn bread and wine into our Lord’s Body and Blood, other than our Lord Himself? Still our Lord commands His priests to act, and to do what is not humanly possible, and when they follow His command, He acts through them.

What’s with certain doctrines like '“in persona christi” or “alter christus”? huh? . .

It would seem that in Catholicism certain kinds of doctrine are fanciful or “innovative novelties” . . IMO

His priests do His work as He commands. He forgave, they forgive; He gave us the Eucharist, they give us the Eucharist; they continue His mission in the world. It is not a new mission.

 

[Wesley7]

Am I misreading this or is this a “diss”?

Maybe this should be in “non-Catholic religions”.

Its critique of certain RC doctrines from the Orthodox POV.

 

[iohanne]

Its critique of certain RC doctrines from the Orthodox POV.

Really? Have you read Eastern Chuch Fathers who’ve written on the matter of the Eucharistic sacrifice as primarily Christ’s own self-immolation and self-offering to the Father in heaven?

Of all the Roman Catholics in the world, I’m probably the one most likely to lament certain innovations and novelties in the Catholic faith but the formulation “in persona Christi” and “alter Christus” is not one of them, my friend. It has deep roots in both patristic writings and in the Scriptures itself.

Orthodox condescension needs to stop. I exhort you to do your own research about the history of Christianity, both east and west, instead of just paying lip service to the form of history that conservative, nationalist and self-righteous Orthodox have fed you. Quite frankly, I’d even exhort many Latins to do the same as well. Furthermore, it’s immature and unproductive in terms of your own theosis to come on our forums simply to ask questions to confirm your already pre-existent bias concerning the nature and history of Roman Catholicism. As one of your own saints have said, go and focus on acquiring inner peace so a thousand souls around you will be saved.

Now if you’re actually genuinely interested in learning something, by all means post as many questions as you want but we’re not a bunch of apostate idiots; we are capable of reading tone just as much as any other human being.

 

[Cristiano]

Its critique of certain RC doctrines from the Orthodox POV.

I did not see any critique. A critique is a logical argumentation trying to prove or disprove something, using some qualifiers is just the expression of a personal feeling about something. I did not see any Orthodox POV presented in regard to the specific aspects of the teaching.

 

[WesleyF]

“And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it** in the person of Christ**.” (2 Cor 2:10)

“in the person of Christ” = “in persona Christi”

So much for novelties!

 

[Wesley7]

I did not see any critique. A critique is a logical argumentation trying to prove or disprove something, using some qualifiers is just the expression of a personal feeling about something. I did not see any Orthodox POV presented in regard to the specific aspects of the teaching.

Not exactly a “critique” - just saying what’s with that → doctrine or that → one? . .

 

[Cristiano]

Not exactly a “critique” - just saying what’s with that → doctrine or that → one? . .

It looks like you are flip flopping a lot. If it is not a critique and you are using derogatory qualifiers then you are showing a lack of respect for the Catholic Church and the members of this forum. My suggestion is that we all drop the topic on this thread, move on, and if you are serious about understanding the teachings you can start a new thread using a different approach.

 

[Todd_Easton]

They both refer to the role of the priest. For example, In persona Christi refers to the Priest in confession. He acts in the person of Christ, showing that it is Christ that is forgiving your sins, and the priest is only the instrument.

Alter Christi shows the Priest as another Christ (he is married to the Church, must be male, absolves sins). Someone can probably explain it better than me, but the priest has the many of the powers of Christ through ordination. Christ gave all his apostles the power to bind and loose sins, and so all priests have that power, from apostolic succession.

Alter Christus also refers to all Christians who by virtue of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ) are other Christs.

 

[Spirithound]

It would seem that in Catholicism certain kinds of doctrine are fanciful or “innovative novelties” . . IMO

You know, it has been my understanding that the Orthodox hold the same doctrine. Is that not true?