Are the Ecumenical Councils valid?

[Giuliano]

It IS true.
When the Pope speaks ex-cathedra it is binding on all catholics and ONLY in this circumstance is he considered to be infallible.

The catholic church does believe that Popes have this authority...I did not question that.
In matter of MORALS and FAITH...the pope can speak with authority that is given to him from the cc itself.

Although the office of the Papacy did not begin with Peter,,,it is true that Rome was looked to as the city/and Bishop, that most represented the church and was sought after when a dispute arose.

But how do people know when a Pope is speaking ex cathedra?

True. Once doctrine has been proclaimed,,,it cannot be changed.
Precisely because the cc wants to believe the Pope is not fallible in these matters.



Yes. It's still part of catholic teaching.
Catholics must believe in catholic doctrine...this is why I left...there was too much to believe that I did not believe.

As to saying that Protestants can be saved:

Originally when the church declared that outside the church there is no salvation
(Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) there was no other church,,,only the catholic church.
So, outside the church there was no salvation...one had to be saved through the church...it was taught that the church saved....Jesus saved...but through the church.

This is interesting...read under HISTORY:
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - Wikipedia


Now, with the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, it shows that the catholic church believes that persons outside the cc can be saved...However, they do believe that a person who knowingly understands the catholic faith and leaves the church is in danger.

For non-catholics:
The CCC no. 1271

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."

It reminds me of the saying in French, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose -- "the more things change, the more they stay the same"; but here it's "the more things change, the more we claim it's always been the same."

If they hadn't had "binding" Ecumenical Councils and the like, life would have been so much easier. Why didn't they imitate the Sanhedrin? They give the Sanhedrin as a precedent by citing Jesus:

Matthew 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
3 all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

The Sanhedrin never ruled on doctrine. Note that Jesus did not tell them to believe doctrines taught by the Sanhedrin. They didn't do that. They made rulings about practices. Sadducees and Pharisees could sit together and vote on things. They shared the same Temple. If times changed, some practices needed to be changed. That is why Jews couldn't read the Bible and know what to do. So Moses said not to eat milk and meat. What did that mean? Could you eat meat, clear the table and immediately say you were holding another meal so you have milk? No? How long did you have to wait then? Blue tassels on your clothes? What shade of blue? People lost track of that; and different Jews were free to do what they wanted. The current Sanhedrin was looking at that question. I don't know if they issued a decree or not; but if they did, then Jews everywhere would be expected to comply. No big deal.

The Catholic Church took that passage from Matthew and added, "whatever they bid you believe, believe." It divided the Church.

What did Paul mean by "heretics?" I think he meant people who created schisms by forming parties. Leave it up to the Bishop to deal with people who try to form a party by inventing new doctrines.

 

[Philip James]

I think you'd be hard pressed to find that idea before Ignatius.

Well seeing as how Ignatius learned these things directly from, and was ordained by the apostles. I'm not sure who else you'ld expect to here it from.
Polycarp of Smyrna commends Ignatius and his letters, and of course Jesus Himself commenda Smyrna in John's revelation..
If you have evidence of the apostolic Church ever teaching otherwise, please share.

He was also probably the first person of note to argue in favor of making Sunday replace the Sabbath -- contrary to Paul's words about it not mattering.

The Eucharist is celebrated daily. The custom of gathering on the first day of the week is to celebrate the 8th day, the first day of the new creation, when Jesus rose from the dead.
For a Christian, every day should be a sabbath, as we rest in Him..

It seems too that the Catholic Church modified his position on baptism.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baptism

Ignatius (Epistle to the Smyrnæans 8): "It is not lawful to baptize or celebrate the agape without the bishop.

Well lets see some more of that:
' It is not lawful apart from the
bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast; but
whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also
to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and
valid.

That went to:

St. Jerome (Against the Luciferians 9) witnesses to the same usage in his days: "Without chrism and the command of the bishop, neither priest nor deacon has the right of conferring baptism."


Today it's:

The same. And unsurprising that the bishops shared this responsibility with the presbytery as the size of the Church grew.

In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infidel or Jew.

The opererative phrase there is 'in case of necessity' this would be an extraordinary baptism.

Peace!

 

[Giuliano]

Well seeing as how Ignatius learned these things directly from, and was ordained by the apostles. I'm not sure who else you'ld expect to here it from.

Someone who became Bishop directly after an Apostle.

Polycarp of Smyrna commends Ignatius and his letters, and of course Jesus Himself commenda Smyrna in John's revelation..

How much importance is placed in the letters of Ignatius? I haven't read them all, but my guess is there could things in them that the Catholic Church would disagree with.

If you have evidence of the apostolic Church ever teaching otherwise, please share.

This is the logical error of arguing from the absence of evidence. "If you can't prove something wrong, it must be right." Some evidence can be destroyed. Evidence was destroyed like the writings of Arius.

The Eucharist is celebrated daily. The custom of gathering on the first day of the week is to celebrate the 8th day, the first day of the new creation, when Jesus rose from the dead.
For a Christian, every day should be a sabbath, as we rest in Him..

Why change the original custom then? Why not observe it sundown after the Sabbath is over? Why not allow people to observe whichever was more convenient? Does it really matter?

And what is the basis for the claim that Jesus rose on the first day of the week? We read that he was not in the grave before the sun rose on the first day of the week, that's what I read, so where did the custom of having sunrise services come from?

Well lets see some more of that:
' It is not lawful apart from the
bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast; but
whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also
to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and
valid.



The same. And unsurprising that the bishops shared this responsibility with the presbytery as the size of the Church grew.



The opererative phrase there is 'in case of necessity' this would be an extraordinary baptism.

Peace!

Thanks for that correction since it shows Jerome held the same position Ignatius did on baptism.

But it is not the same since "in case of necessity" was added. You can't add something and then say nothing changed. Someone somewhere along the line altered what they said.

I read Ignatius and Jerome to mean obey your local Bishop. If your Bishop said it was okay for pagans to baptize in extraordinary cases, that would make it okay; if he said it wasn't, then you should observe that. Ignatius defends the rights of the individual Bishop; it doesn't look as if the Catholic Church does that today.

I don't live among the Amish; but I live close to them. Their Bishops often have different views. They do not argue with each other; and if you don't like what your Bishop says, you can move to another's Bishop's area. You can't travel to meetings to change who your Bishop is, you have to change your residence. Not that I agree with their theology, but I see the wisdom in the practice and believe it's how early Christianity was until this Bishop and that Bishop wanted to impose his way of doing things and his beliefs on other Bishops. We can see too how the Catholic Church still does it this way when it has no problems with other Churches that have other rites and practices. The Bishop of Rome isn't undermining the authority of their Bishops; and people get along fine. I had a friend from Lebanon who belonged to the Maronite Church. He also didn't have a problem adapting when he moved to the United States; he wasn't all that pious, but he sent his daughter to the local Catholic school.

I'd like to see the Catholic Church return to the original system so a Bishop could excommunicate rebels (even priests) in his see with other Bishops acknowledging his authority and backing him up even if they didn't agree completely with him. To me the idea of the Bishop holding authority is a doctrine, not a matter of mere practice. As I see it, the Catholic Church has undermined its own Bishops and the doctrine about the authority of Bishops.

 

[epostle]

Maybe that should be true, it would be nice if it were; but things are not always that way, and the Catholic Church needs a way to make that so if they care about people.

 

[epostle]

Someone who became Bishop directly after an Apostle.
How much importance is placed in the letters of Ignatius? I haven't read them all, but my guess is there could things in them that the Catholic Church would disagree with.

Then name them, guessing doesn't cut it.
Library : The Seven Epistles Of St. Ignatius Of Antioch

This is the logical error of arguing from the absence of evidence. "If you can't prove something wrong, it must be right." Some evidence can be destroyed. Evidence was destroyed like the writings of Arius.

You are missing the point. The doctrine of the Eucharist has been consistently taught since John taught Ignatius. It was not formally contested until the 16th century. This presents insurmountable problems for objectors so they, especially Calvin, is forced to trash Ignatius. The consistent and unanimous teaching on the Eucharist by the Early Church Fathers is available for all to see, to suggest "evidence was destroyed" is a whole new level of stupid. Arius' writings were destroyed because of the danger they posed to society, if they were destroyed in the first place. His views were expressed and recorded at the Council of Nicae.
John Calvin: Ignatian Epistles (c. 110) Not Authentic

Baptists at Nicea by Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem. ::

 

[Giuliano]

I would need to see statistics that show how many of those charities actually take money from governments, and how many operate as businesses independentlly not being owned or run by the diocese they're in. There is a "Catholic" hospital close to where I live. It used to be very good when nuns ran it as a truly Catholic hospital. Then someone came in and took over. The new owners continued to call it a Catholic hospital; but it really wasn't. I think that's a growing pattern as the number of nuns goes down. Note too that when that hospital was actually run by a church, it could use church rules about who they employed; after ownership changed, they could be sued for discrimination if they didn't follow government rules for businesses.

I can't call the groups that take money from the government Catholic charities. When Obamacare was being implemented and the government was paying people to educate people how to use Obamacare, there was one Catholic hospital that took the money even though it meant telling people about birth control. Don't forget too that the Catholic Church was strongly in favor of Obamacare at first; and that was because they thought they'd get lots of money. Some facilities in California had been taking financial losses; and they saw Obamacare as a way to make up the money. That was before they got surprised that it would include birth control. Then they were opposed.

Some orphanages and foster care programs also got into trouble with the government when they took government money but didn't want to follow government rules. At least one simply closed down over it. That tells me most of their money was coming from the government.

All kinds of groups call themselves Catholic when they're not. Remember EWTN when it was operated independently and not under the supervision of a Bishop? Sister Angelica formed that as a nonprofit. She felt free to get into a fight with Cardinal Mahony. She actually asked Catholics to disobey him. That got fixed, and I believe EWTN is now under proper supervision, thank goodness; but it shows how something that's called Catholic sometimes isn't. I know she was popular; but I had to side with him.

I don't enjoy bringing it up; but the huge scandal about orphanages in Ireland was largely created because nuns were getting money to care for unwed mothers and orphans, and it was a money-making deal not a real charity. They didn't want to spend money -- and the children were underfed and abused. What they did with some children born out of wedlock to save money was horrendous. Thank goodness that's not going on anymore, but it damaged the Catholic Church's reputation when the news broke that that charity had been posing as a charity but wasn't.

I'd like to see where these Catholic Charities' money comes from before I judge if they're really charities.

 

[Giuliano]

Then name them, guessing doesn't cut it.
Library : The Seven Epistles Of St. Ignatius Of Antioch

Start with this then from his letter to the Ephesians:

The last times are come upon us. Let us therefore be of a reverent spirit, and fear the long-suffering of God, that it tend not to our condemnation. For let us either stand in awe of the wrath to come, or show regard for the grace which is at present displayed — one of two things. Only[in one way or another] let us be found in Christ Jesus unto the true life. Apart from Him, let nothing attract[16] you, for whom I bear about these bonds, these spiritual jewels, by which may I arise through your prayers, of which I entreat I may always be a partaker, that I may be found in the lot of the Christians of Ephesus, who have always been of the same mind with the apostles through the power of Jesus Christ.

The last times are come upon us. Let us therefore be of a reverent spirit, and fear the long-suffering of God, lest we despise the riches of His goodness and forbearance.[15] For let us either fear the wrath to come, or let us love the present joy in the life that now is; and let our present and true joy be only this, to be found in Christ Jesus, that we may truly live. Do not at any time desire so much as even to breathe apart from Him. For He is my hope; He is my boast; He is my never-failing riches, on whose account I bear about with me these bonds from Syria to Rome, these spiritual jewels, in which may I be perfected through your prayers, and become a partaker of the sufferings of Christ, and have fellowship with Him in His death, His resurrection from the dead, and His everlasting life.[17] May I attain to this, so that I may be found in the lot of the Christians of Ephesus, who have always had intercourse with the apostles by the power of Jesus Christ, with Paul, and John, and Timothy the most faithful.

Was he right? I think maybe he was; but I wager the Catholic Church doesn't. How could he be so wrong if you think he was wrong? Did Polycarp get it wrong, did John get it wrong?

You are missing the point. The doctrine of the Eucharist has been consistently taught since John taught Ignatius. It was not formally contested until the 16th century. This presents insurmountable problems for objectors so they, especially Calvin, is forced to trash Ignatius. The consistent and unanimous teaching on the Eucharist by the Early Church Fathers is available for all to see, to suggest "evidence was destroyed" is a whole new level of stupid.

I was discussing when it was celebrated not what. I don't think there is a question over the Eucharist. My question was over what day of the week early Christians met on.

Arius' writings were destroyed because of the danger they posed to society, if they were destroyed in the first place. His views were expressed and recorded at the Council of Nicae.

We don't know what was in them then. When we know the Catholic Church burned documents in that instance, who knows what else may have been destroyed? Asking me to produce evidence is a little dubious.

John Calvin: Ignatian Epistles (c. 110) Not Authentic

Baptists at Nicea by Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem. ::

I could not consider Calvin as a source if I was looking for facts.

 

[Philip James]

Was he right? I think maybe he was; but I wager the Catholic Church doesn't.

The Church has always taught that we are living in 'the last days' .

From the catechism:

670 Since the Ascension God's plan has entered into its fulfilment. We are already at "the last hour"...

Keep reading Ignatius! I hope you'll find him edifying..

I will address your previous post tonight.

Peace be with you!

 

[Philip James]

Hello Giuliano,

This is the logical error of arguing from the absence of evidence. "If you can't prove something wrong, it must be right." Some evidence can be destroyed. Evidence was destroyed like the writings of Arius.

You're grasping at straws here. Let's review:

You posited that anyone can preside over the celebration of the Eucharist.

I pointed out that the living witness of all the apostolic churches is contrary to this idea.

I further showed evidence from Ignatius' letters that the Church has always reserved this to the bishops and those approved (ordained) by them.

And to support your assertion, you have provided no living apostolic witness, neither documents supporting this position.

Now are you suggesting that lack of evidence does not prove you in error? It seems to me you are the one arguing from an absence of evidence...

But what if all the evidence was destroyed? Lack of evidence does not prove me wrong you suggest..

There are two obvious issues with that line of reasoning:

1. Using this argument one could argue almost any practice that they imagine in the early church and assert 'lack of evidence does not prove me wrong'.

2. If all evidence of this Truth has been destroyed, including a living witness from an apostolic community, then clearly the gates of hell have prevailed and Jesus is shown to be a false prophet. Such a position is untenable.

So it must be rather that the Holy Spirit has indeed preserved the Truth down through the centuries in the apostolic communities that still bear witness to this.

Why change the original custom then? Why not observe it sundown after the Sabbath is over? Why not allow people to observe whichever was more convenient? Does it really matter?

Saturday night IS the first day of the week..

Many parishes offer a Saturday night (vigil) Mass.
In fact, the greatest celebration of the Divine Liturgy is the Easter Vigil Mass on Saturday night. If you never attended one, I would urge you to see one for yourself. You will see us proclaiming the mighty works of our God, from the beginning of creation up to the resurrection of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. In a large and active parish or cathedral the Mass may last 2-3 hours...

Thanks for that correction since it shows Jerome held the same position Ignatius did on baptism.

But it is not the same since "in case of necessity" was added. You can't add something and then say nothing changed. Someone somewhere along the line altered what they said.

The clarification of a Truth, does not change or negate the Truth as originally expressed. For example: If I said I drive a truck at work, and later clarified that I drive a white truck, it does not change the truth that I drive a truck. It does however clarify it so that those who thought I drive a blue or a red truck can now be corrected...

I read Ignatius and Jerome to mean obey your local Bishop. If your Bishop said it was okay for pagans to baptize in extraordinary cases, that would make it okay; if he said it wasn't, then you should observe that.

Indeed, and if the magesterium of the bishops, as a whole, say that extraordinary baptisms are valid (provided the proper intent and Trinitarian formula is used) then that makes it 'okay'. This is an example of the power of the Church to 'bind and loose'. And further, demonstrates the Grace and Mercy of God who wishes all men to be saved...

Ignatius defends the rights of the individual Bishop; it doesn't look as if the Catholic Church does that today....
We can see too how the Catholic Church still does it this way when it has no problems with other Churches that have other rites and practices. The Bishop of Rome isn't undermining the authority of their Bishops; and people get along fine. I had a friend from Lebanon who belonged to the Maronite Church. He also didn't have a problem adapting when he moved to the United States; he wasn't all that pious, but he sent his daughter to the local Catholic school.

I'd like to see the Catholic Church return to the original system so a Bishop could excommunicate rebels (even priests) in his see with other Bishops acknowledging his authority and backing him up even if they didn't agree completely with him. To me the idea of the Bishop holding authority is a doctrine, not a matter of mere practice. As I see it, the Catholic Church has undermined its own Bishops and the doctrine about the authority of Bishops.

Firstly, the ordinary bishop of a diocese certainly CAN 'excommunicate rebels (even priests)' He has full executive, legislative and juridical power within his own diocese.

Further, there are many rites (such as the Maronite) within the Catholic Church. Also multitudes of prelatures, communities, organizations, and religious orders, all with their own rules and statutes, their own missions, devotions, traditions, and way of life. All of them living out the ONE faith under the authority and the supervision of the bishops of the Church. And all of them, bearing with one another in love, and sharing in the ONE celebration of the Eucharist.

For a better understanding of how this operates I would suggest a reading of Canon Law here: Code of Canon Law: Table of Contents

Peace be with you!

 

[Giuliano]

Hello Giuliano,

You're grasping at straws here. Let's review:

You posited that anyone can preside over the celebration of the Eucharist.

I pointed out that the living witness of all the apostolic churches is contrary to this idea.

You are pointing out what the practice was.

I further showed evidence from Ignatius' letters that the Church has always reserved this to the bishops and those approved (ordained) by them.

And to support your assertion, you have provided no living apostolic witness, neither documents supporting this position.

I gave Scripture. Where tro or more are gathered. . . .

Now are you suggesting that lack of evidence does not prove you in error? It seems to me you are the one arguing from an absence of evidence...

But what if all the evidence was destroyed? Lack of evidence does not prove me wrong you suggest..

There are two obvious issues with that line of reasoning:

1. Using this argument one could argue almost any practice that they imagine in the early church and assert 'lack of evidence does not prove me wrong'.

2. If all evidence of this Truth has been destroyed, including a living witness from an apostolic community, then clearly the gates of hell have prevailed and Jesus is shown to be a false prophet. Such a position is untenable.

So it must be rather that the Holy Spirit has indeed preserved the Truth down through the centuries in the apostolic communities that still bear witness to this.

It seriously undermines the position that "truth" has been preserved when documents have been destroyed.

Saturday night IS the first day of the week..

Many parishes offer a Saturday night (vigil) Mass.
In fact, the greatest celebration of the Divine Liturgy is the Easter Vigil Mass on Saturday night. If you never attended one, I would urge you to see one for yourself. You will see us proclaiming the mighty works of our God, from the beginning of creation up to the resurrection of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. In a large and active parish or cathedral the Mass may last 2-3 hours...

Saturday night meetings in the early Church suggests to me that many were observing the Sabbath.

The clarification of a Truth, does not change or negate the Truth as originally expressed. For example: If I said I drive a truck at work, and later clarified that I drive a white truck, it does not change the truth that I drive a truck. It does however clarify it so that those who thought I drive a blue or a red truck can now be corrected...

That is not certain. If I knew you said you drove a truck and someone came and told me you were driving a white truck, I wouldn't know if he was right or wrong. The other person would be adding to what you said.

We know in many cases what earlier people actually said. Later generations added to what they said, and we've no idea if they're right or wrong.

If all you said was "a truck," one person could come to me say you meant a red truck, someone else could say it meant a white one. If neither witnessed it, I can't be sure what you meant beyond it being "a truck."

How men preserve the original can be called a tradition -- and a tradition can be wrong if they add or subtract. Jews did it.

Mark 7:13 making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Indeed, and if the magesterium of the bishops, as a whole, say that extraordinary baptisms are valid (provided the proper intent and Trinitarian formula is used) then that makes it 'okay'. This is an example of the power of the Church to 'bind and loose'. And further, demonstrates the Grace and Mercy of God who wishes all men to be saved...

I see more adding to what Ignatius wrote. I don't read Ignatius mentioning the magisterium. Indeed, how old is the concept of the magisterium? When was the word first used in the religious sense?

Firstly, the ordinary bishop of a diocese certainly CAN 'excommunicate rebels (even priests)' He has full executive, legislative and juridical power within his own diocese.

Can a bishop laicize them if they do not reform after being excommunicated?

Further, there are many rites (such as the Maronite) within the Catholic Church. Also multitudes of prelatures, communities, organizations, and religious orders, all with their own rules and statutes, their own missions, devotions, traditions, and way of life. All of them living out the ONE faith under the authority and the supervision of the bishops of the Church. And all of them, bearing with one another in love, and sharing in the ONE celebration of the Eucharist.

For a better understanding of how this operates I would suggest a reading of Canon Law here: Code of Canon Law: Table of Contents

Peace be with you!

I love how it works. It is an example of how different people with different practices can co-exist -- and in unity with the Bishop of Rome. He doesn't need to impose Rome's ideas about practices on them. It's a beautiful thing to me. The Church can become fractured when the center demands too much uniformity in its members; and I think that been a problem historically. Instead of creating unity, it created fractures. I see strength arising from diversity.

 

[Giuliano]

The Church has always taught that we are living in 'the last days' .

From the catechism:

670 Since the Ascension God's plan has entered into its fulfilment. We are already at "the last hour"...

Keep reading Ignatius! I hope you'll find him edifying..

I will address your previous post tonight.

Peace be with you!

I agree with Ignatius and the Catechism on that; but I doubt the theologians in the Catholic Church knows what to make of it or what Peter wrote.

2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

 

[Philip James]

Can a bishop laicize them if they do not reform after being excommunicated?

From the code of canon law that I linked above:

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1/ to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;

3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

Peace!

 

[Giuliano]

From the code of canon law that I linked above:

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1/ to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;

3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

Peace!

So why not allow a Bishop (or at least a synod) to laicize him? Why burden the Bishop of Rome with that? He and the Curia have enough to do. I also wonder if an excommunicated priest could move to another bishopric to escape obeying his Bishop. In the child abuse cases, I get the feeling many Bishops would have laicized offending priests, preventing them from being shuffled off to another Bishop. What could the Bishops do though? Pay bad priests for not working by forbidding them to do anything -- or seeing how hard it was to laicize them, let them be transferred. I'd love to see Bishops be able to defrock priests. It might scare the bad priests enough that they wouldn't offend when tempted. We haves seen bad priests being supported at Church expense because no Bishop wants them.

 

[Philip James]

So why not allow a Bishop (or at least a synod) to laicize him? Why burden the Bishop of Rome with that? He and the Curia have enough to do. I also wonder if an excommunicated priest could move to another bishopric to escape obeying his Bishop. In the child abuse cases, I get the feeling many Bishops would have laicized offending priests, preventing them from being shuffled off to another Bishop. What could the Bishops do though? Pay bad priests for not working by forbidding them to do anything -- or seeing how hard it was to laicize them, let them be transferred. I'd love to see Bishops be able to defrock priests. It might scare the bad priests enough that they wouldn't offend when tempted. We haves seen bad priests being supported at Church expense because no Bishop wants them.

I'm not sure I understand your questions.
A bishop most certainly can impose a penalty of a loss of clerical state on priests in his diocese (following procedure as laid out in canon law).
Further, priests are not free to move from one diocese to another, but must follow the rules set out in canon law to transfer to another diicese.
A request to receive a dispensation from their vow of chastity, however, can only be granted by the pope.

Peace!

 

[Giuliano]

I'm not sure I understand your questions.
A bishop most certainly can impose a penalty of a loss of clerical state on priests in his diocese (following procedure as laid out in canon law).

From what I read in the news, it's the Pope that reduces a priest to a layman. The Bishop can prevent a priest from conducting any church duties and I believe even withhold Communion; but he can't reduce him to the status of layman. That means his diocese is bound to support him financially.

Further, priests are not free to move from one diocese to another, but must follow the rules set out in canon law to transfer to another diicese.
A request to receive a dispensation from their vow of chastity, however, can only be granted by the pope.

Peace!

What does a Bishop do with priests who have to be supported financially while doing nothing? That's where the temptation to allow them to be moved to another diocese comes in. The rules are followed, but the new Bishop doesn't know what he's getting.

Here are links to stories about Popes laicizing people.

Pope laicizes suspended Missouri priest who led dissident church | Archdiocese of Baltimore

Defrocked priest claims his problem isn't bunga-bunga but Rosmini

John Geoghan - Wikipedia

I think it's expecting too much from the Pope who already has enough to do; and it makes it harder for Bishops to maintain discipline. I think St. Ignatius was right. and it would be good to return to his idea on this.

 

[Philip James]

From what I read in the news, it's the Pope that reduces a priest to a layman. The Bishop can prevent a priest from conducting any church duties and I believe even withhold Communion; but he can't reduce him to the status of layman. That means his diocese is bound to support him financially

This is incorrect.

A couple things first: the correct term is 'removal from the clerical state' . and a bishop certainly can impose that penalty on a cleric in his diocese.

However:
Can. 1417 §1. By reason of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, any member of the faithful is free to bring or introduce his or her own contentious or penal case to the Holy See for adjudication in any grade of a trial and at any stage of the litigation.

Now just as if I did something that got me fired from my job, they would no longer have to pay my salary, but they could not deny my pension that I have accured over 30 years of service.

Different diocese have different pension plans for their clerics, so what (if any) pension owed to one who has been removed from the clerical state may vary from place to place.

There is not, as far as I know , anything that requires a diocese to support one who has been removed from the clerical state.

Peace!

 

[Enoch111]

A couple things first: the correct term is 'removal from the clerical state' . and a bishop certainly can impose that penalty on a cleric in his diocese.

I trust you are aware that this whole matter is TOTALLY UNBIBLICAL.

 

[Giuliano]

This is incorrect.

A couple things first: the correct term is 'removal from the clerical state' . and a bishop certainly can impose that penalty on a cleric in his diocese.

Why don't they then? This case happened close where I live.

Bishop changes course, asks pope to defrock last abusive priest on church payroll in Pa.

The bishop asked the Vatican to allow Pease to "live out his remaining years in prayer and penance, without adding further anxiety or suffering to his situation, and without risking public knowledge of his crimes."

Gainer has now changed his mind.

A week after the York Daily Record published a report showing Pease is the only priest among 72 accused in the Harrisburg diocese who is still on the church's payroll, the bishop is now seeking laicization for Pease.

It's not the first case I heard of where a Bishop got stuck supporting a priest financially. Back in 2007, there was a notorious case.

Giuliani's loyalty to an accused priest

Giuliani employs his childhood friend Monsignor Alan Placa as a consultant at Giuliani Partners despite a 2003 Suffolk County, N.Y., grand jury report that accuses Placa of sexually abusing children, as well as helping cover up the sexual abuse of children by other priests. Placa, who was part of a three-person team that handled allegations of abuse by clergy for the Diocese of Rockville Centre, is referred to as Priest F in the grand jury report. The report summarizes the testimony of multiple alleged victims of Priest F, and then notes, "Ironically, Priest F would later become instrumental in the development of Diocesan policy in response to allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests."

Five years after he was suspended from his duties because of the abuse allegations, Placa is currently listed as "priest in residence" at St. Aloysius Church in Great Neck, N.Y., where close friend Brendan Riordan serves as pastor, and officially lives at the rectory there with Riordan. In addition, Placa co-owns a penthouse apartment in Manhattan with Riordan, the latest in a half-dozen properties the two men have owned in common at various times since the late 1980s.

I believe Riodan is living in Florida now. Probably with Placa.

My understanding of the Rockville Centre problem was that Bishops sent offenders there to get them out of their dioceses with the hope they could be rehabilitated; but it didn't work. Puting that many gay men in one place was an invitation to disaster. If memory serves me right, the Bishops did that because it was so hard to get them kicked out of the priesthood and they had to keep paying them.

However:
Can. 1417 §1. By reason of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, any member of the faithful is free to bring or introduce his or her own contentious or penal case to the Holy See for adjudication in any grade of a trial and at any stage of the litigation.

Now just as if I did something that got me fired from my job, they would no longer have to pay my salary, but they could not deny my pension that I have accured over 30 years of service.

What if they didn't tell you you were fired, that they couldn't fire you so you could keep getting paid?

Different diocese have different pension plans for their clerics, so what (if any) pension owed to one who has been removed from the clerical state may vary from place to place.

There is not, as far as I know , anything that requires a diocese to support one who has been removed from the clerical state.

Peace!

In theory a Bishop could call a tribunal and put a priest on trial. When's the last time that's happened? They weren't removed from their priest status.

Why did Pope Benedict (as a Cardinal) have to be the one to "defrock" so many priests? This story makes it look as if you're right, that Bishops could have but didn't -- but they also have to get approval from Rome.

Pope Benedict XVI defrocked nearly 400 priests for child abuse

Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger took action after determining that bishops around the world weren't following church law to put accused clerics on trial in church tribunals. Bishops routinely moved problem priests from parish to parish rather than subject them to canonical trials or turn them into police.

For centuries, the church has had its own in-house procedures to deal with priests who sexually abuse children. One of the chief accusations from victims is that bishops put the church's own procedures ahead of civil law enforcement by often suggesting victims keep accusations quiet while they are dealt with internally.

The maximum penalty for a priest convicted by a church tribunal is essentially losing his job: being defrocked, or removed from the clerical state. There are no jail terms and nothing to prevent an offender from raping again.

According to the 2001 norms Ratzinger pushed through and subsequent updates, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reviews each case sent to Rome and then instructs bishops how to proceed, either by launching an administrative process against the priest if the evidence is overwhelming or a church trial. At every step of the way the priest is allowed to defend himself.

Why does Rome have to instruct Bishops how to proceed in every case?

 

[Philip James]

In theory a Bishop could call a tribunal and put a priest on trial. When's the last time that's happened? They weren't removed from their priest status.

Why did Pope Benedict (as a Cardinal) have to be the one to "defrock" so many priests? This story makes it look as if you're right, that Bishops could have but didn't -- but they also have to get approval from Rome.

Well i cant comment on the specifics of any one case, however the failure of some bishops to adequetly deal with the problem may indeed have led to the papal office getting more involved.

Again from the code of canon law:

Can. 1405 §1. It is solely the right of the Roman Pontiff himself to judge in the cases mentioned in can. 1401:

1/ those who hold the highest civil office of a state;

2/ cardinals;

3/ legates of the Apostolic See and, in penal cases, bishops;

4/ other cases which he has called to his own judgment

#4 could certainly have been invoked if the pope felt he needed to ensure the bishops were dealing with it properly.

In any event, the ordinary bishop for a diocese does have the power to try priests for delecits and can impose penalties of varying severity including removal from the clerical state.

Seems to me you have an issue with how the bishops used (or failed to use) their authority to deal with the problem.

Peace!

 

[Giuliano]

Well i cant comment on the specifics of any one case, however the failure of some bishops to adequetly deal with the problem may indeed have led to the papal office getting more involved.

Again from the code of canon law:

Can. 1405 §1. It is solely the right of the Roman Pontiff himself to judge in the cases mentioned in can. 1401:

1/ those who hold the highest civil office of a state;

2/ cardinals;

3/ legates of the Apostolic See and, in penal cases, bishops;

4/ other cases which he has called to his own judgment

#4 could certainly have been invoked if the pope felt he needed to ensure the bishops were dealing with it properly.

In any event, the ordinary bishop for a diocese does have the power to try priests for delecits and can impose penalties of varying severity including removal from the clerical state.

Thanks for that information.

Seems to me you have an issue with how the bishops used (or failed to use) their authority to deal with the problem.

Peace!

'm not sure the issue is mine. I'm just an observer giving my opinion. If Bishops have that authority and are failing to use it appropriately, I'd think the Pope would be disturbed with them. I know if I was Pope and I had to handle cases a Bishop should have, I'd discipline the Bishop; but then I'm not the Pope. It's not my problem.