Vatican officials this week revealed the inner workings of the Apostolic Penitentiary, a “tribunal of conscience” that has been shrouded in mystery for more than eight centuries.
As the Vatican’s highest court, the tribunal deals with confessions considered so grave only the Pope himself has the authority to absolve them.
Um, paying for an abortion needs papal absolution but sex abuse does not? How on Earth do they come up with these things?
Let’s get the context right. The article refers to [i]men who directly participate in an abortion, such as by funding it, and later seek to become priests or deacons.[/i] The qualifying clause is surely key, since it relates to eligibility for ordination. We can debate whether there should be other categories to be considered.
Doesn’t the Bible say that only God can forgive sins, through Christ? Doesn’t the Bible not mention a Pope at all?
I’m not a Roman Catholic but imagine in Catholic biblical interpretation this passage been theologically productive:
Ember, it was the Pharisees and “teachers of the law” that said only God can forgive sins. Read the Gospel according to Mark, chapter 2.
Ember,
Nor does the Bible mention the Trinity ? So, you are a
non-Trinitarian Christian, right …?
#2 — Sorry, but the context makes absolutely no sense to me. When the men paid for the abortion, they weren’t ordained so that can’t factor into the seriousness of committing the sin itself. Rules for ordination are a different matter entirely.
St Jimbo, are you implying the opposite: not only can Some Special People forgive sins, but they, and only they can do so? I agree with Ember that this is exceptionally unbiblical.
Actually, Christ gave us the power to forgive sins. …in the Lord’s prayer (duh) and told us disciples that we *have to* forgive sins if we wish to be forgiven. (Matthew 6:9-11) He said to love, do good to, pray for, bless and forgive our enemies and gave us power to forgive sins. (John 20:21-23)
James 5:16 – confess your faults to one another and pray for one another thay you may be healed.
We are a kingdom of priests…with one Great High Priest.
Our Lord’s words to the Apostles:
Ahhh the glorious fruits of [url=http://audio.ancientfaith.com/illuminedheart/ih_2009-01-16_pc.mp3]sola scriptura[/url].
GA/FL
The verses you quote refer to sins committed against the person, not sins in general. We all have the power to pardon someone who sins against us. In the Lord’s prayer, if we do not forgive those who ‘sin against us’, then we stand the risk of having our sins go unforgiven as a result of hardness of heart.
The verses quoted by driver8 speak to a special privilege granted to the Apostles and their successors to forgive sins IN GENERAL, a privilege handed down through Apostolic succession to those who are ordained to the office of priest, bishop and higher.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the section on ‘forgiveness of sins’ states it:
976 The Apostle’s Creed associates faith in the forgiveness of sins not only with faith in the Holy Spirit, but also with faith in the Church and in the communion of saints. It was when he gave the Holy Spirit to his apostles that the risen Christ conferred on them his own divine power to forgive sins: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
981 After his Resurrection, Christ sent his apostles “so that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations.” The apostles and their successors carry out this “ministry of reconciliation,” not only by announcing to men God’s forgiveness merited for us by Christ, and calling them to conversion and faith; but also by communicating to them the forgiveness of sins in Baptism, and reconciling them with God and with the Church through the power of the keys, received from Christ.
IN BRIEF
984 The Creed links “the forgiveness of sins” with its profession of faith in the Holy Spirit, for the risen Christ entrusted to the apostles the power to forgive sins when he gave them the Holy Spirit.
985 Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of the forgiveness of sins: it unites us to Christ, who died and rose, and gives us the Holy Spirit.
986 By Christ’s will, the Church possesses the power to forgive the sins of the baptized and exercises it through bishops and priests normally in the sacrament of Penance.
987 “In the forgiveness of sins, both priests and sacraments are instruments which our Lord Jesus Christ, the only author and liberal giver of salvation, wills to use in order to efface our sins and give us the grace of justification” (Roman Catechism, I, 11, 6).
Allow me to continue from the [url=http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm]Catechism[/url] (remember, this thread is dealing with the Roman Catholic view on forgiveness). The numbers in front of a section refer to the ‘paragraph’ numbers of the Catechism, for easy reference. the numbers in the paragraph are footnote numbers, usually referencing Scripture or the writings of the Church teachings.
Only God forgives sin
1441 Only God forgives sins.39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, “The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” and exercises this divine power: “Your sins are forgiven.”40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.41
1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the “ministry of reconciliation.”42 The apostle is sent out “on behalf of Christ” with “God making his appeal” through him and pleading: “Be reconciled to God.”43
1461 Since Christ entrusted to his apostles the ministry of reconciliation,65 bishops who are their successors, and priests, the bishops’ collaborators, continue to exercise this ministry. Indeed bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
1462 Forgiveness of sins brings reconciliation with God, but also with the Church. Since ancient times the bishop, visible head of a particular Church, has thus rightfully been considered to be the one who principally has the power and ministry of reconciliation: he is the moderator of the penitential discipline.66 Priests, his collaborators, exercise it to the extent that they have received the commission either from their bishop (or religious superior) or the Pope, according to the law of the Church.67
1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.69
1464 Priests must encourage the faithful to come to the sacrament of Penance and must make themselves available to celebrate this sacrament each time Christians reasonably ask for it.70
1465 When he celebrates the sacrament of Penance, the priest is fulfilling the ministry of the Good Shepherd who seeks the lost sheep, of the Good Samaritan who binds up wounds, of the Father who awaits the prodigal son and welcomes him on his return, and of the just and impartial judge whose judgment is both just and merciful. The priest is the sign and the instrument of God’s merciful love for the sinner.
1466 The confessor is not the master of God’s forgiveness, but its servant. The minister of this sacrament should unite himself to the intention and charity of Christ.71 He should have a proven knowledge of Christian behavior, experience of human affairs, respect and sensitivity toward the one who has fallen; he must love the truth, be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, and lead the penitent with patience toward healing and full maturity. He must pray and do penance for his penitent, entrusting him to the Lord’s mercy.
There is a very interesting book called [b]The Bad Popes[/b] writtien in 1986 by E. R. Chamberlin. It documents the lives of eight of the most controversial popes.
The historicity of apostolic succession is dubious at best.
I could be wrong, but isn’t the succession supposed to have been passed through Gregory XII and John XXIII? And, weren’t they declared to have been false popes?
Just asking…
Now, for the record, I do believe that there has been an unbroken line of ministers in the Church Mysterious (the True Church), but I think that the official line of succession is…very questionable.
Sick & Tired of Nuance,
Happily, the answer to your question isn’t very nuanced. The Catholic Church does not believe in any direct succession from pope to pope — mostly because the new pope is chosen after the previous pope is, um, dead. So, the period of time between the death of one pope to the election of a new one is irrelevant; it can be many years, during which no one claims to be pope; it can be many years during which many people falsely claim to be pope; it can be only a few days.
The way this is reflected in terminology is that, properly speaking, the current pope is the “successor of St. Peter,” the leader of Christians at Rome. The current pope is not, technically, simply the successor of the previous pope, as if some kink in the chain would through the whole thing off.
The case is different with “apostolic succession,” which only refers to the continuity of a continuous chain of bishops, each one consecrated by an existing (and very much alive) bishop. THIS is where a “kink in the chain” could be considered problematic by traditional RC theology. The Pope is the bishop of Rome, but all that is necessary to be bishop of Rome is ordination by other living bishops and election to the job. No “special blessing” from the previous pope is required.
Also worth noting is that “in danger of death,” any priest can forgive any sin or excommunication:
Can. 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present. (Code of Canon Law)
The juridical process of reserving the forgiveness of a particular type of sin to a bishop or to the pope, and the juridical process of excommunication, are ways of socially-structuring the body of Christ to (1) ensure that the sins deemed most destructive to the whole community are dealt with in an appropriately grave matter (reserved absolutions); and (2) to point out when particularly grevious sins demand (public) repentence (excommunication).
I think a very good argument could be made for including priestly child abuse on this list. Maybe it will be. Since accusations of child abuse are currently handled by the most important office in the Vatican, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, rather than the rather obscure Apostolic Penitentiary that we’re talking about here, you could argue that the Church already considers priestly child abuse to be perhaps the most destructive.
Doesn’t the Bible say that only God can forgive sins, through Christ?
So where does one find Christ to obtain the forgiveness of one’s sins?
Why, when the MSM horribly mangles Anglican issues so frequently, are Anglicans so willing and eager to go solely on what the MSM says re: anything Catholic?
Catholic teachings are easy enough to find online for free. Instead of taking a journalistic article as Gospel, why not google the Catechism or other appropriate Church documents?
Or just click the link I provided above, Chris. 😉
See there, now?
There IS hope for our Presiding Bishop and her fellow travelers. Somebody WILL be able to forgive their sins against the Body, against the unborn, and against those seeking faith only to come away more confused. Find the Pope. You stand a better chance with him than the Supreme Judge.
Pontifex Maximus strikes again. Seeing that the papacy isn’t in the scriptures and developed hundreds of years after the establishment of the church by the Apostles, it would be wise for Christians not to give this any credence. The bishop of Rome is simply one of many bishops throughout the world and has no more “special powers†than any other bishop.
Vincent
So where does one find Christ to obtain the forgiveness of one’s sins?
I’m hoping you’re not saying we need the pope, the bishops, or even priests or deacons to “find Christ?”
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
Vincent,
the majority of Christians in the world (including myself) are NOT [i]sola scriptura[/i], so your argument would fall as irrelevant in speaking to them (and me) of truth. Scripture is instead seen as [i]Prima Scriptura[/i] or even [i]Supra Scriptura[/i] and is held as the pimary point of God’s revealed truth, but not the ONLY means. Other revelation cannot contradict Scripture, but does not have to be included or explicit in Scripture to be valid.
As to the Bishop of Rome (RC) being just one among equals is what led to one of the first splits in Christendom, and is probably the one compelling point of your argument!
justinmartyr –
I posed a question. If Christ forgives your sins, where do you find him to get your sins forgiven.
libraryjim –
The first splits in Christianity occurred in the first century and continue today. That the other bishops looked to Rome to settle disputes is hardly controversial. What that means, I suppose, is more controversial, since Catholics have seen it as a step in the development of papal doctrine, the terminus being the declaration of infallibility by the First Vatican Council. Protestants and Orthodox do not go there, of course. In any case, I would have put the Christological controversies as having led to the first schisms.
Ljim-
My comment derived, in part, from Communio: Church and Papacy in Early Christianity, by Ludwig Hertling, which I just located. My take was that the first centuries of Christianity were not unlike the past few centuries.
Re # 25
WM
That’s a comment that could use some amplification. I see few parallels between the first few centuries and the current state of Christianity beyond the proliferation of heresies.
Actually, AO, heresies have more or less repeated themselves in different dress since the beginning. For example, the Christology of the Jehovah’s Witness is basic Arianism. A fair amount of mainline protestantism contains pelagian and, at worst, gnostic elements. And so on. I think you get a fair sprinkling of Montanism in contemporary pentecostalism, and even in some Baptist, or evangelical denominations.
From the beginning, groups were leaving the apostolic fellowship. Hertling’s monograph, cited above, portrays a Church that was far from a simple, unified structure we see today in Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Bishops kept careful lists of who they were and were not in Communion with; different sects rose up, with various bishops drawn under their influence. By the end of the third century you have the Marcionites and Montanists, just to name the better known groups. I used to have a nice compendium of sects, but can’t access it right now. Here’s something from Wiki:
I would accept the argument that the split of East and West that culminated in the 11th century was substantially different than the sectarian splits that arose before and after.
Given that as the basis of your comparison I am compelled to agree. I will take it a step further and say I am not sure I would put the East – West schism in a separate category given the very profound theological differences dividing Rome and Orthodoxy.
Honestly, I am not so sure I would put the East/West split into a separate category either; I could go either way on that.
My comments, however, were nothing more than a reply to libraryjim’s statement that the status of the bishop of Rome set off one of the first split in Christianity. There were many schism’s before that, assuming he is referring to the definitions that came about in the 5th century (I think it was then; too late to dig it up, but I’m thinking Gregory the Great?).
WM,
Yes, I was speaking of the split between East-West, with the Bishop of Rome declaring himself (being declared?) the head of the church, rather than one among equals (Patriarchs). or rather the beginning of the split which reached its fullness with the addition of the [i]filoque[/i] clause to the Creed.
I recognize the various minor splits, but they did not have the impact that this split did, creating as it did two major bodies of the Church, which the minors did not.