Catholic Q&A

[Blitz]

He said every church must agree with the Church of Rome thus the later persecution of Protestants. Apostolic succession is given a much higher place in importance than it should get. For goodness sake, the Pope doesn't even train a successor. They were picked with by the king who had the most money a lot of times.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Do you have a source for that?

Also St. Irenaeus died in 202 AD, over a thousand years before the Protestant Reformation. I think that's a bit long for causation.

How much importance should Apostolic Succession receive?

[Blitz]

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

"Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession." Adversus Haereses (Book IV, Chapter 26)

Both quotes come from Adversus Haereses by Irenaeus.

[Eleventh Doctor]

That first quote doesn't come from St. Irenaeus writings Against Heresies: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103426.htm

How much importance should Apostolic Succession receive?

[Blitz]

Hmm now Apostolic succession is impossible to trace back to it's beginning anyway so it has little importance now a days. Even the early churches teachings had occasional errors.

[Eleventh Doctor]

My Church has records for our bishops that go back to the Apostles. Yes, the early church had errors but Apostolic Tradition was maintained in the end.

[Pound Foolish]

Good Doctor, at this point, you have indeed settled on some contradictions. Which is perfectly fine. As I explained above, and as someon as informed as you should know, doctrine is unchangeable. What is just as important to understand is that everything is not. We only have a comparatively few doctrines compared to our many customs and teachings, or more properly, disciplines. Canon Law is not doctrine. It has to do with matters that are not strictly spiritual, in this case, elections.

Only very specific matters are made doctrines, and those only come to be every few hundred years. It would be a fine Church that declared ideas to be unchangeable Christian truths willy-nilly.

Let's talk about disciplines. Disciplines are all over the Bible. For example, matters like wearing jewelry, tassels on your cloak, and covering your hair while prophesying are disciplines. Protestants tend to disagree on which disciplines are still in affect today and which aren't. They don't always realize the are changeable and Jesus left an authority on earth to change them. Disciplines, in addition to the examples above, are things like priests being celibate.

Above disciplines are dogmas. Dogmas are on spiritual matters, but they have not been made doctrine as such.

Doctrines are at the tippy-top. God reveals absolute truths as doctrines through the Church over time. All doctrine, however, is actually drawn from Biblical knowledge. But there are various conclusions that can be drawn from the Bible. The Catholic Church uses this information to confirm the correct conclusions and eliminate the various incorrect ones. Scripture refers to doctrine as "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).

That said, even though things have changed concerning elections, it is not like the Pope pulls a name out of a hat. There is significant local input. The Metropolitan Archbishop maintains a list of names provided by each bishop in the Province of suitable candidates for the episcopacy. The Apostolic Nuncio (Papal legate) in each country consults with the local bishops, and others, and draws up a terna of three names. The terna is then reviewed by the Congregation for Bishops in Rome which narrows down the list to a final candidate for papal approval.

PF the argument on purgatory has no mention whatsoever of purgatory itself. As the punishments were received on earth and not after death. Could I also have the verses for the mention on the indulgence.

God blesses dead Christians as a reward to living Christians.

From the beginning the Church recognized the validity of praying for the dead so that their transition into heaven (via purgatory) might be swift and smooth. This meant praying for the lessening or removal of temporal penalties holding them back from the full glory of heaven.

If it is reasonable to ask that these penalties be removed in general, then it would be reasonable to ask that they be removed in a particular case as a reward. A widower could pray to God and ask that, if he has pleased God, his wife's transition into glory be hastened. For this reason the Church teaches that "indulgences can always be applied to the dead by way of prayer."[12]

A close parallel to this application is 2 Maccabees. Judah Maccabee finds the bodies of soldiers who died wearing superstitious amulets during one of the Lord's battles. Judah and his men "turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out" (2 Macc. 12:42). The reference to the sin being "wholly blotted out" refers to its temporal penalties. The author of 2 Maccabees tells us that for these men Judah "was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness" (v. 45); he believed that these men fell asleep in godliness, which would not have been the case if they were in mortal sin. If they were not in mortal sin, then they would not have eternal penalties to suffer, and thus the complete blotting out of their sin must refer to temporal penalties for their superstitious actions. Judah "took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this . . . he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin" (vv. 43, 45).

Judah not only prayed for the dead, but he provided for them the then—appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties: a sin offering.[13] Accordingly, we may take the now—appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties—indulgences— and apply them to the dead by way of prayer.

There is a difference between the way indulgences are obtained by us in this life and the way in which they are applied to the dead. The official documents of the Church, such as Pope Paul VI's apostolic constitution on indulgences, the Code of Canon Law, and The Catechism of the Catholic Church, all note that indulgences are applied to the dead by way of prayer.

This is because Christians in the hereafter are no longer under the earthly Church's jurisdiction. They no longer can receive sacraments, including penance, and the Church does not have authority to release their temporal penalties. All it can do is look to God and pray that he will lessen them. This is a valid form of prayer, as 2 Maccabees indicates. We may have confidence that God will apply indulgences to the dead in some way, but the precise manner and degree of application are unknown.[14] These seven principles, which we have seen to be thoroughly biblical, are the underpinnings of indulgences, but there are still questions to be asked:

Who are the parties involved?

There are four parties: The first pleased God and moved him to issue a reward, providing the basis for the indulgence; the second requests the indulgence and obtains it by performing the act prescribed for it; the third issues the indulgence (this is God working through the Church); and the fourth receives the benefit of the indulgence by having his temporal penalties lessened.[15]

How many of one's temporal penalties can be remitted?

Potentially, all of them. The Church recognizes that Christ and the saints are interested in helping penitents deal with the aftermath of their sins, as indicated by the fact they always pray for us (Heb. 7:25, Rev. 5:8). Fulfilling its role in the administration of temporal penalties, the Church draws upon the rich supply of rewards God chose to bestow on the saints, who pleased him, and on his Son, who pleased him most of all.[16] The rewards on which the Church draws are infinite because Christ is God, so the rewards he accrued are infinite and never can be exhausted. His rewards alone, apart from the saints', could remove all temporal penalties from everyone, everywhere. The rewards of the saints are added to Christ's—not because anything is lacking in his, but because it is fitting that they be united with his rewards as the saints are united with him. Although immense, their rewards are finite, but his are infinite.

"If the Church has the resources to wipe out everyone's temporal penalties, why doesn't it do so?"

Because God does not wish this to be done. God himself instituted the pattern of temporal penalties being left behind. They fulfill valid functions, one of them disciplinary. If a child were never disciplined he would never learn obedience. God disciplines us as his children—"the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives" (Heb. 12:6)—so some temporal penalties must remain.

The Church cannot wipe out, with a stroke of the pen, so to speak, everyone's temporal punishments because their remission depends on the dispositions of the persons who suffer those temporal punishments. Just as repentance and faith are needed for the remission of eternal penalties, so they are needed for the remission of temporal penalties. Pope Paul VI stated, "Indulgences cannot be gained without a sincere conversion of outlook and unity with God."[17] We might say that the degree of remission depends on how well the penitent has learned his lesson.

How does one determine by what amount penalties have been lessened?

Before Vatican II each indulgence was said to remove a certain number of "days" from one's discipline—for instance, an act might gain "300 days' indulgence"—but the use of the term "days" confused people, giving them the mistaken impression that in purgatory time still exists and that we can calculate our "good time" in a mechanical way. The number of days associated with indulgences actually never meant that that much "time" would be taken off one's stay in purgatory. Instead, it meant that an indefinite but partial (not complete) amount of remission would be granted, proportionate to what ancient Christians would have received for performing that many days' pious deeds.

So, someone gaining 300 days' indulgence gained roughly what an early Christian would have gained by, say, reciting a particular prayer on arising for 300 days.

To overcome the confusion Paul VI issued a revision of the handbook (Enchiridion is the formal name) of indulgences. Today numbers of days are not associated with indulgences which are either plenary or partial.[18]

Only God knows exactly how efficacious any particular partial indulgence is or whether a plenary indulgence was received at all. The new system of reckoning leaves exact amounts to God and involves the Church in only general principles.

"Don't indulgences duplicate or even negate the work of Christ?"

Despite the biblical underpinnings of indulgences, some are sharply critical of them and insist the doctrine supplants the work of Christ and turns us into our own saviors.

This objection results from confusion about the nature of indulgences and about how Christ's work is applied to us.

Indulgences apply only to temporal penalties, not to eternal ones. The Bible indicates that these penalties may remain after a sin has been forgiven and that God lessens these penalties as rewards to those who have pleased him. Since the Bible indicates this, Christ's work cannot be said to have been supplanted by indulgences.

The merits of Christ, since they are infinite, comprise most of those in the treasury of merits. By applying these to believers, the Church acts as Christ's servant in the application of what he has done for us, and we know from Scripture that Christ's work is applied to us over time and not in one big lump (Phil. 2:12, 1 Pet. 1:9).

"But what about the merits of the saints—by the doctrine of indulgences aren't the saints made co-saviors with Christ?"

Not at all. At best they would only be saving us from temporal calamities, which any human may do (and should do!) for another without blaspheming Christ.[19] Besides, the saints have the ability to please God because the love of God has been put in their hearts (Rom. 5:5). It is God's grace that enables them to please to him. His grace produces all their good actions, and his grace is given to them because of what Christ did. The good actions of the saints therefore are produced by Christ working through them, which means Christ is the ultimate cause of even this temporal "salvation." "Should we be talking along these lines? Isn't it better to put all of the emphasis on what Christ alone?"

No. If we ignore the fact of indulgences, we neglect what Christ does through us, and we fail to recognize the value of what he has done in us. Paul used this very sort of language: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" (Col. 1:24).

Even though Christ's sufferings were superabundant (far more than needed to pay for anything), Paul spoke of completing what was "lacking" in Christ's sufferings. (As put by Augustine, "The God who created you without your cooperation will not save you without your cooperation.") If this mode of speech was permissible for Paul, it is permissible for us, even though the Catholic language about indulgences is far less shocking than was Paul's language about his own role in salvation.

Catholics should not be defensive about indulgences. They are based on principles straight from the Bible, and we can be confident not only that indulgences exist, but that they are useful and worth obtaining.

Pope Paul VI declared, "[T]he Church invites all its children to think over and weigh up in their minds as well as they can how the use of indulgences benefits their lives and all Christian society.... Supported by these truths, holy Mother Church again recommends the practice of indulgences to the faithful. It has been very dear to Christian people for many centuries as well as in our own day. Experience proves this."

Yes, the Pope himself is fallible in the sense he has no real power. All his "power" comes from God, not from any personal ability. He has NO God-given knowledge of Christian truth. Only his own, which he comes by the usual way, normal study and thought and prayer. But God protects him from error when he speaks or writes on spiritual matters. Please understand, though, because of that, the Pope is infallible. But only when talking on strictly spiritual matters and only through God.

he Church of Rome is built on a pretty unsteady foundation. Never in the Bible did it give anywhere for passing the authority of the apostles down.

Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep. But Jesus' flock would exist far beyond Peter's time, so how could he fulfill that order without a successor?

Also, the Catholic church has evolved heavily from the beginning.

Absolutely. Our disciplines (teachings and traditions that aren't doctrine) don't change regularly. But, since we've been around hundreds of years, we've evolved a lot more than younger religions.

Icon debate? What's that? Please inform me.

Finally, implying that the Catholic Church is God's representative on Earth and claiming higher spiritual ability is in no way a tested to in the Bible except possibly when Christ was talking to Peter and only there in the whole Bible. This give the Church way too much power which corrupts as seen again and again.

Blink. Just how far do you Protestants take that, "It ain't true unless the Bible says it enough times" philosophy? Do you realize what you just said!? In essence, you said Jesus might have said it once. But if so, no biggy. Which is as if to imply that because Jesus said it once and not five times, it's not necessarily true!

My parents were both Catholic. My dad even nearly became a priest. After an incident, he decided to renounce Catholicism and travel the world. He became a Christian in Argentina.

Well, I'll pray you all come back home.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Very well, I do agree there's a difference between dogma etc. So let's move onto the other topics.

[John Henry]

What are your thoughts about the Inquisition? Aren't they the founders of Satanism?

[Eleventh Doctor]

No, they aren't John Henry. I don't know where you heard that.

[Pound Foolish]

John Henry, it's beginning to be distinctly tempting to think you aren't reading anybody's answers.

Good Dr., St. Meletius did indeed head the second Ecumenical Council of 380. The Western Bishops were against it, but the Eastern bishops went for it.

The thing to keep in mind is that the Pope did not object to this. No Pope attended any of the seven Ecumenical councils, or call for them either. They councils of the bishops concerning the bishops. In fact, in the case of this particular council, the pope wasn't even aware of it.

The later Catholic practice of the pope calling and chairing every ecumenical council was not the case during the first millennium.

[Blitz]

I'll be answering your post PF... when I get unlazied...

[Eleventh Doctor]

So how can the Ecumenical Councils represent Dogma if the Pope wasn't involved at all?

[Pound Foolish]

Why shouldn't it? The Pope has top authority, but of course, that doesn't prevent others having authority. During an ecumenical council, they are protected from error on purely spiritual or moral matters as well.

[Eleventh Doctor]

So why does the pope need to have top authority if the ecumenical councils are protected from error?

[Pound Foolish]

Ahem. Which is more convenient: one dude who is the leader, or getting hundreds of bishops together. Every congress needs a president.

Even more to the point, we've been over this. The pope is in charge because Jesus built his church on Peter and His successors. Though I realize I need to continue that rather long (but delightful, just time consuming though) discussion in Christian vs. Catholic. We'll get to the bottom of it some century or other.

[Eleventh Doctor]

As you say though, it's not a matter of which is more convenient but which is right.

But anyway, let's move onto my questions about the fourth and fifth ecumenical councils. Do you have answers yet?

[SirWhit]

Ahem. Which is more convenient: one dude who is the leader, or getting hundreds of bishops together. Every congress needs a president.

Even more to the point, we've been over this. The pope is in charge because Jesus built his church on Peter and His successors. Though I realize I need to continue that rather long (but delightful, just time consuming though) discussion in Christian vs. Catholic. We'll get to the bottom of it some century or other.

Seriously. When does it say, "Peter, thou shalt be pope along with several other dudes after you."

-- Wed Oct 29, 2014 6:08 pm --

What do you think about the statements of Pope Francis in regards to evolution?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Oh brother, the statement by Pope Francis regarding evolution just confirms what the majority of Christians in the world have believed for centuries.

[Metal15]

I don't believe the majority of Christians have believed in Darwin's theory of evolution for centuries. However, if you'd like to back that claim up with sources...