The Clergy

[Psychotheosophy]

How are the clergy,
The same as everyone else,
And different from everyone else?

 

[davidv]

How are the clergy,
The same as everyone else,
And different from everyone else?

Same
Human
Different
Ordained by God

 

[runningdude]

The clergy have the same graces available to humans in Good standing with Christ’s
church -

Baptism - the gift of washing away original and prebaptismal sin
Marriage - (In the Eastern Churches), the gift of fellowship and procreation

Confirmation - the gift of the Holy Spirit’s special graces
Confession - the gift of forgiveness for all post baptismal sins
Eucharist - the gift of spiritual nourishment through the true body and blood of Christ
Anointing of the Sick - the gift of spiritual comfort and forgiveness of sins to those to sick to confess.

In addition, they receive the graces of Holy Orders, which gives the man the graces necessary to confer all but the first two sacraments (Baptism can be confer by any human in times of emergency, and marriage may be conferred by any consenting, baptized couple following proper norms).

Holy Orders, like all the other sacraments, indelibly marks the immortal soul of the priest. It in face can mark the soul of a man up to three times, allowing the special graces of the Priesthood to more fully transform an individual.

All the sacraments take ordinary motions and elements, and raise them up to to provide divine graces to protect the follower of Christ from sin and fill him or her with Christ’s Love. The priest is just as capable of sinning as any other human, but if the priest consistently examines his conscience and receives absolution as needed from his fellow priest, his leadership of his flock is elevated to the divine, aiding the salvation the souls of his parishioners and his own soul as well.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

“Order is the cause of man being the dispenser of the other sacraments”(Summa Theologica: Volume 5, Question 34, Article 3)

So the only difference between the ordained and everyone else,
Is that they can dispense the sacraments?

Holy Orders, like all the other sacraments, indelibly marks the immortal soul of the priest. It in fact can mark the soul of a man up to three times.

“No sacrament that imprints a character (indelible mark) is repeated. But no Order can be repeated. Therefore a character is imprinted in the other Orders.”(Summa Theologica: Volume 5, Question 30, Article 3)

Each time a man receives the Sacrament of Orders,
Each indelible mark is not identical,
And the Orders are hierarchical.

Baptism can be conferred by any human in times of emergency.

"If a layman were to baptize even outside a case of urgency; he would sin

The proper dispenser of baptism still belongs to a priest.

Marriage may be conferred by any consenting, baptized couple following proper norms

“From the beginning the Fathers regarded marriage as a religious affair. St. Ignatious of Antioch demands the cooperation of the Church in the contracting of marriage: ‘It befits the bridegroom and the bride to enter the nuptial relationship with the approval of the bishop so that the marriage may be according to the Lord and not according to concupiscence’”

The proper norms still requires the ordained to approve the marriage within the Church.
So he still dispensing matrimony in some way.

“Intention is necessary in all the sacraments. Now he who consents not in he is heart has no intention of contracting marriage; and therefore he does not contract the marriage”(Summa Theologica: Volume 5, Question 45, Article 4)

And for a bishop,
To fulfill his ordination worthily,
He would need to require that,
As the spiritual and the bodily are not the same,
Merely external (physical) acts of marital consent is not a true marriage.

The priest is just as capable of sinning as any other human

“A priest is a blasphemer and a cheat if he exercises his Order unworthily, and thus he sins mortally: and in like manner any other person in Orders.”(Summa Theologica: Volume 5, Question 36, Article 5)

Penance, (healing from mortal sin) is repeated,
And is therefore not imprinted on the soul.
And so even though one is baptized
(The gateway to the sacraments)
He can still be condemned to hell,
Including priests, bishops, deacons, and laity.

…allowing the special graces of the Priesthood to more fully transform an individual.

Do you believe that there is an End to this “transformation”?

 

[DavidFilmer]

So the only difference between the ordained and everyone else,
Is that they can dispense the sacraments?

That’s the main difference as far as the Catholic laity is concerned. Priests are also under sacred vows, and are subject to various rules (Canon Law, etc) that are not binding on laypeople.

Each time a man receives the Sacrament of Orders,
Each indelible mark is not identical,
And the Orders are hierarchical.

It’s not a “mark” like a stamp - it’s a charism which grows as a person receives higher orders. Maybe you could think of it as a stamp that gets bigger (although, technically, any Baptized male could be ordained Bishop without having ever been ordained as a deacon or priest).

The proper dispenser of baptism still belongs to a priest.

The ordinary minister of Baptism is a deacon, priest, or Bishop.

The proper norms still requires the ordained to approve the marriage within the Church. So he still dispensing matrimony in some way.

In the understanding of Latin Rite Catholics, the bride and groom are the ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony (they mutually confer it upon each other). The priest (or deacon/bishop) confers the blessing of the Church. But, as you say, in the ordinary form of marriage, the priest (etc) is not optional, so, although he does not “dispense” this Sacrament, he is an integral (and necessary) part of the ordinary liturgical form.

And for a bishop,
To fulfill his ordination worthily,
He would need to require that,
As the spiritual and the bodily are not the same,
Merely external (physical) acts of marital consent is not a true marriage.

I’m a bit confused by the mixing of the Bishop’s ordination with the marital consent. But it is true that all Sacraments require valid consent (of the minister, not the recipient). Latin Rite Catholics regard the bride and groom as the ministers, so a defect of consent (of either of them) would mean that no Sacramental union could occur. This is one reason why Catholics place a strong emphasis on the need for proper pre-marital preparation.

And so even though one is baptized
(The gateway to the sacraments)
He can still be condemned to hell,
Including priests, bishops, deacons, and laity.

Yes, absolutely.

Do you believe that there is an End to this “transformation”?

The question is not addressed to me, but I will give my answer: it is absolutely possible to achieve spiritual perfection in our earthly life (this has been taught by many Saints, including (at least) three Doctors of the Faith). If a person achieves earthly spiritual perfection then their earthly transformation is complete (and thus at an end).

Furthermore, such a transformation unto spiritual perfection is not limited to Ordained ministers (or monks/nuns, etc), and is not restricted to those who show heroic virtue, but it can be obtained by ordinary people living ordinary lives (St Thérèse of Lisieux was named a Doctor of the Faith specifically because of her teaching on this subject).

 

[Psychotheosophy]

That’s the main difference as far as the Catholic laity is concerned. Priests are also under sacred vows, and are subject to various rules (Canon Law, etc) that are not binding on laypeople.

What are the various rules?

In the understanding of Latin Rite Catholics, the bride and groom are the ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony (they mutually confer it upon each other). The priest (or deacon/bishop) confers the blessing of the Church. But, as you say, in the ordinary form of marriage, the priest (etc) is not optional, so, although he does not “dispense” this Sacrament, he is an integral (and necessary) part of the ordinary liturgical form.

“Consequently every valid contract of marriage between Christians is, on the ground of positive Divine ordinance, at the same time a Sacrament. According to Decretum pro Armenis, the mutual declaration of the will of the pair to be married (not the priestly blessing!) is the efficient cause of the Sacrament of Matrimony.”

I think I see what you mean.

It’s not a “mark” like a stamp - it’s a charism which grows as a person receives higher orders. Maybe you could think of it as a stamp that gets bigger.

This would be misleading,
Because then you would be saying the part = the whole.
As if you are saying that the bride or bridegroom = marriage,
Or that the bride or bridegroom = Love (God).

“Creation is understood (as) the production of a thing out of nothing… and before the act of Creation, neither the things as such, nor any material substratum, from which it was produced, existed… From Creation in the proper and strict sense (creatio prima) is to be distinguished the so-called creatio secunda, by which is understood the modeling of formless material and the bestowal of life upon it.”

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

And the bride or bridegroom can not be God,
Since they have material bodies.

(Looking at Church teachings as a unified whole,
Since material does not equal God,
All material does not equal The Eucharist (The Way to God).)

But it is true that all Sacraments require valid consent (of the minister, not the recipient). Latin Rite Catholics regard the bride and groom as the ministers, so a defect of consent (of either of them) would mean that no Sacramental union could occur. This is one reason why Catholics place a strong emphasis on the need for proper pre-marital preparation.

“Things directed to one purpose are said to be united in their direction thereto, thus many men are united in following one military calling or in pursuing one business, in relation to which they are called fellow-soldiers or business partners. Hence, since by marriage certain persons are directed to one begetting and upbringing of children, and again to one family life, it is clear that in matrimony there is a joining in respect of which we speak of husband and wife; and this joining, through being directed to some one thing, is matrimony; while the joining together of bodies (Gen 2:24) and minds is a result of matrimony.”

So, the proper pre-marital preparation involves understanding that,
The consent to marriage is the consent to the proper definition of marriage,
Which includes that the bride and groom become one in matrimony,
Not one in themselves.

The question is not addressed to me, but I will give my answer: it is absolutely possible to achieve spiritual perfection in our earthly life (this has been taught by many Saints, including (at least) three Doctors of the Faith). If a person achieves earthly spiritual perfection then their earthly transformation is complete (and thus at an end).

Could you define “earthly spiritual perfection”?

 

[runningdude]

Could you define “earthly spiritual perfection”?

By the grace of God, Jesus and Mary obtained earthly spiritual perfection. Technically they may have been conceived with such special grace, but I would use them as an example (coming up with a definition eludes me!)

 

[StrawberryJam]

No fancy answers for you.
You already have them here in the thread.

The difference to me personally, is that I realize I am talking to a man who is set aside for God.
He did that in loving sacrifice.
And, trust me- it is a sacrifice talking to me, let alone the many others he does.
He said, “here I am”

And I find it an honorable thing, to do what he does for others as he does.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Baptism can be confer by any human in times of emergency

My apologies for nitpicking. But the specifics of this statement is this:

In terms of validity, anyone can validly baptize, as long as they use proper matter (water, preferably clean and pure unless its emergency then you can use something like rainwater or even saltwater), proper form (say the words, “I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” while pouring or immersing), and proper intention, that is to will what the Church wills when she baptizes (cleanse sins, bring person into the Church).

Now, Canon Law forbids the laity from baptizing outside of cases of necessity. But that will not affect the validity of the Sacrament. You can still validly baptize under normal circumstances, but its illicit and you are committing an offense against the Church. So its a sin (disobedience to the Church), and possibly punishable by Canon Law (maybe not for once or twice, but if you open something like a Baptismal service and Baptize for the Catholic Church, undermining the role of the clergy).

 

[runningdude]

Do you believe that there is an End to this “transformation”?

Nope, I was just referring to the three phases or offices conferred as Holy Orders is progressively applied. Your commentary certainly helps clarify any ambiguity my summary may have left

Could you clarify the quote about baptism. The grammar and/or translation is a bit confusing for me:

“If a layman were to baptize even outside a case of urgency; he would sin, yet he would confer the sacrament; nor would the person being baptized be baptized again.” (Summa Theologica: Volume 4, Question 67, Article 3)

Is it a sin for a layman to baptize in a case or urgency, or only “outside a case of urgency” (though the Baptism is still valid “even” in such a case). I just want to make sure I’m following your commentary correctly.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

My apologies for nitpicking. But the specifics of this statement is this:

In terms of validity, anyone can validly baptize, as long as they use proper matter (water, preferably clean and pure unless its emergency then you can use something like rainwater or even saltwater), proper form (say the words, “I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” while pouring or immersing), and proper intention, that is to will what the Church wills when she baptizes (cleanse sins, bring person into the Church).

Now, Canon Law forbids the laity from baptizing outside of cases of necessity. But that will not affect the validity of the Sacrament. You can still validly baptize under normal circumstances, but its illicit and you are committing an offense against the Church. So its a sin (disobedience to the Church), and possibly punishable by Canon Law (maybe not for once or twice, but if you open something like a Baptismal service and Baptize for the Catholic Church, undermining the role of the clergy).

If the Church established,
Something like a Baptismal service,
Which had only laity baptizing indiscriminately,
Would the Church be disobeying itself?

 

[StrawberryJam]

If the Church established,
Something like a Baptismal service,
Which had only laity baptizing indiscriminately,
Would the Church be disobeying itself?

Yes, unless there was a war or other type of emergency we can not imagine…
I would hope that baptisms done by laity were only done under conditions we can not even imagine now in our lifetimes.
I would think it would be so very remote that any case like that would be so remote that, it is not taken lightly, and with extra care (I hope)
The Church can not be held responsible for anyone who does not follow her rules on this.? Right?

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Yes, unless there was a war or other type of emergency we can not imagine…
I would hope that baptisms done by laity were only done under conditions we can not even imagine now in our lifetimes.
I would think it would be so very remote that any case like that would be so remote that, it is not taken lightly, and with extra care (I hope)
The Church can not be held responsible for anyone who does not follow her rules on this.? Right?

My question is ambiguous.

How could,
The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,
Disobey itself?

“While the Holy Ghost is the soul of the Church, the lawfully organized visible commonwealth of the faithful is the body of the Church”

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Since the laity (and clergy) are the Church,
Why would they,
Not need to take responsibility for themselves.

What information do you need to clarify my question?

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Yes, unless there was a war or other type of emergency we can not imagine…
I would hope that baptisms done by laity were only done under conditions we can not even imagine now in our lifetimes.
I would think it would be so very remote that any case like that would be so remote that, it is not taken lightly, and with extra care (I hope)
The Church can not be held responsible for anyone who does not follow her rules on this.? Right?

I think you’re probably right,
Maybe this helps…

“One may, with the Vatican Council, distinguish a two-fold unity of the Church (Unity of Faith and Unity of Communion)… One is cut off from the unity of Faith by heresy, and from the unity of communion by schism.”

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

So,
Those who cut themselves off from the Church,
Disobey it,
And the Church can not be held responsible
For their decisions.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

The effect of Baptism (justification) occurs, “provided that the proper dispositions (Faith (in God) and sorrow for sins) are present.”
“Only the theoretical truths of Revelation concerning God and His activity are dealt with in dogmatic theology (doctrina credendorum: the science of things to be believed).”

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

To receive justification through baptism,
Requires faith in God,
Who is defined by dogma.

 

[StrawberryJam]

A conduit to the graces in the sacraments?

 

[ConstantineTG]

If the Church established,
Something like a Baptismal service,
Which had only laity baptizing indiscriminately,
Would the Church be disobeying itself?

No. What I made as an example of course is fictious, but imagine a Las Vegas type of wedding chapel, but only for baptism. Not that people are seeking baptisms outside of Church. Remember, small C church means a parish or even just a building, a place of worship. Big C Church refers to the Catholic Church.

The Church can appoint a lay person to baptize normally under her authority. Since lay people can validly baptize, the Church law against it under normal circumstances is merely disciplinary. Missionaries may be granted this authority if their areas are remote and is normally inaccessible to priests.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, unless there was a war or other type of emergency we can not imagine…
I would hope that baptisms done by laity were only done under conditions we can not even imagine now in our lifetimes.
I would think it would be so very remote that any case like that would be so remote that, it is not taken lightly, and with extra care (I hope)
The Church can not be held responsible for anyone who does not follow her rules on this.? Right?

Actually it happens pretty normally in hospitals where cases of emergency would arise. If a person is in danger of death and you believe a priest cannot arrive in time, then you can go ahead and baptize. I’ve heard of nurses being trained to baptize in Catholic hospitals, especially for babies who may die within hours after birth.

In fact I was faced with this dilema. My son at 5 days old was going into surgery, and I didn’t want him to go there without the grace of baptism. I called my priest whom I wasn’t sure if he was coming or not. He called another priest because my parish is on the other side of town (45 mins if no traffic) from the hospital. The priest came when we went down for x-rays. So he missed us, but I contacted him again. Just left a message. I wasn’t sure if he was coming, so I prepared myself to do the baptism. I said I will do it 15 minutes before the scheduled surgery, so I know that I’ve given enough opportunity for the priest to arrive. Thankfully he did, and he confirmed my son as well. But if he didn’t, I would have done it myself and it was within good reason for me to do it.

An opposite example is out of extreme devotion, you want your child baptized within the hour he/she is born. The baby was pronounced healthy by the doctor. There is no reason you cannot wait to get to Church. In this case you are violating two Canon Laws. One, a lay person baptized outside the case of necessity. Second, you cannot baptize in hospitals unless its a case of necessity.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My question is ambiguous.

How could,
The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,
Disobey itself?

Since the laity (and clergy) are the Church,
Why would they,
Not need to take responsibility for themselves.

What information do you need to clarify my question?

While the laity is part of the Church, the authority of the Church is given to the Apostles who then gave it to their successors, the Bishops of today. Being part of the Church is not absolute. Through our sins we are separated from the Church, that is why absolution from a priest is important because not only do we obtain forgiveness from God for our sins, the priest also reinstates us with the Church.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

A conduit to the graces in the sacraments?

“In baptism a man dies to the oldness of sin and starts to live in the newness of grace.”

While the laity is part of the Church, the authority of the Church is given to the Apostles who then gave it to their successors, the Bishops of today. Being part of the Church is not absolute. Through our sins we are separated from the Church, that is why absolution from a priest is important because not only do we obtain forgiveness from God for our sins, the priest also reinstates us with the Church.

Besides not answering my question regarding a Church Baptismal Service…

“(The Unity of Faith) consists in the fact that all members of the Church inwardly believe the truths of faith proposed by the teaching office of the Church, at least implicitly, and outwardly confess them.”

“If any baptized person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy (Codex luris Canonici 1325, Paragraph 2), and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication (Codex luris Canonici 2314, Paragraph 1).”

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

So,
Even if a Church member
Only inwardly rejects a dogma,
Without outwardly confesses so,
That person is still a heretic.

“Infallibility is the impossibility of falling into error. One may distinguish an active and passive infallibility. The former belongs to the pastors of the Church in the exercise of their teaching office (infallibilitas in docendo), the latter to the faithful as a whole in its assent to the message of faith (infallibilitas in credendo). Active and passive are related as cause and effect.”

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Both pastors and laity have a kind of infallibility.

I infallibly say that the dogmas related to material,
Which are deliberately and stubbornly rejected by any baptized person,
Should no longer consider themselves,
Members of the Church.

If a designated “Teaching Authority,”
(Pope and totality of Bishops)
Would reject these dogmas,
It would be an apostasy,
Forsaking the faith.

However, since it is dogma that,
The Church is infallible,
This “Teaching Authority”,
Can not be considered,
The real one.

(Since we know that elections can be fixed.)