The Church Does Not Have The Authority To beaver dam

[Eliakim]

The topic is supposed to read the R C C does not have the authority to d a m n. 

 

Sometimes after laying out articles of faith, the Roman Catholic Church attached clauses that run something like this: if you don't believe this you cannot inherit eternal life.  Or one cannot be saved unless they believe this. 

 

Now I believe these extra clauses are out of the Church's jurisdiction. 

 

Yes Peter got the keys, but Jesus still has the keys too as Revelation says

Yes Peter and the Apostles got the power to bind and loose but Jesus has the last word as the end of Mathew says. 

 

So my proposition is that the Keys and the power to bind and loose cannot include issuing penalties or ultimatums that beaver dam those not deemed in compliance. 

 

Therefore whenever the R C C attached or attaches an ultimatum like that, it is frankly stepping outside its authority and certainly cannot be promulgated infallibly as ex-cathedra is only for faith and morals not judgments. 

 

E

Edited February 14, 2014 by Eliakim

[cmaD2006]

moving to debate table (not taking any chances on this topic)

[Nihil Obstat]

If one rejects an article of faith, he puts himself outside the Church.

[Basilisa Marie]

Well, first, God is the ultimate judge of a person's soul. 

 

But the Church knows that if someone rejects Church teaching, they're in danger of going to hell.  The passages you're referring to are "let them be anathema." Anathema means "set apart" or "suspended."  Being "sent to hell" isn't the best translation of the word. A better translation would be "removed from the Body of Christ." It's a particular kind of excommunication. In as such, it's basically saying that unless the person repents, they're separated from Church, and thrown to the judgement and mercy of God. Because the Church is the only sure access to salvation, it's a big deal, and it's possible to generalize and say that those who are anathema are going to hell. Catholics aren't always going to add the caveat "but God is the ultimate judge and decides whether or not the person will be saved" every time they talk about this, because that's already understood, or implied.  

For a lot of people, the idea of being separated from the Church and the idea of going to Hell are one in the same, but that' not necessarily true. It's a fine distinction, because again, yes, God is the final say.  But that doesn't mean that we're not allowed to make really good educated guesses, or use our deductive reasoning to figure things out. God gave the Church the authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit so it can do that. 

[blazeingstar]

Alrighty, so there's now 30,000+ different ways of interpreting the Bible in Christianity VS Catholocim's one version (and various rites of how that should be executed).

 

That sounds a whole bunch more like that whole "watch out for divisions" think Jesus talked about.  To take away a centeralized church would be to negate Christianity as a whole as in these times the fracturization makes it contradict itself.

[Luigi]

And the Church has never officially damned anyone to hell. Th"let them be anathema" teachings are as close as they come.

[Eliakim]

No, the Church has said things beyond "anathema", such as Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctum said if one does not accept the proposition included in the Papal Bull he cannot be saved. 

 

Also, who is the Church to say who is out of the Church?  I would also categorize this presumptuous verdict as again, outside the Church's jurisdiction of power of Keys and binding and loosing.  These cannot include saying who is outside the Church, only what is allowed and not allowed...no extra attachment clauses that say, "and if you don't do what we say and believe you are d a m n e d or outside the Church. 

 

E

[CatholicCid]

No, the Church has said things beyond "anathema", such as Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctum said if one does not accept the proposition included in the Papal Bull he cannot be saved. 

 

Also, who is the Church to say who is out of the Church?  I would also categorize this presumptuous verdict as again, outside the Church's jurisdiction of power of Keys and binding and loosing.  These cannot include saying who is outside the Church, only what is allowed and not allowed...no extra attachment clauses that say, "and if you don't do what we say and believe you are d a m n e d or outside the Church. 

 

E

 

In these lines of thoughts, I've always wondered this: You say the Church is overstepping her bounds. The Church clearly disagrees. Why should I accept your opinion over that of Christ's Church?

Edited February 14, 2014 by CatholicCid

[Eliakim]

In these lines of thoughts, I've always wondered this: You say the Church is overstepping her bounds. The Church clearly disagrees. Why should I accept your opinion over that of Christ's Church?

 

Well, it comes down to what is covered by the power of the Keys and binding and loosing.  Ex cathedra pronouncements only include faith and morals not penalties and judgments. 

 

The keys only include authority/pre-eminence of bishop of Rome I believe. 

Binding and loosing only includes forgiveness of sins. 

 

None of the three cover penalties and judgments. 

 

That is my proposal, and I have not seen anything to the contrary.

 

E

[Oremoose]

The topic is supposed to read the R C C does not have the authority to d a m n. 

 

Sometimes after laying out articles of faith, the Roman Catholic Church attached clauses that run something like this: if you don't believe this you cannot inherit eternal life.  Or one cannot be saved unless they believe this. 

 

Now I believe these extra clauses are out of the Church's jurisdiction. 

 

Yes Peter got the keys, but Jesus still has the keys too as Revelation says

Yes Peter and the Apostles got the power to bind and loose but Jesus has the last word as the end of Mathew says. 

 

So my proposition is that the Keys and the power to bind and loose cannot include issuing penalties or ultimatums that beaver dam those not deemed in compliance. 

 

Therefore whenever the R C C attached or attaches an ultimatum like that, it is frankly stepping outside its authority and certainly cannot be promulgated infallibly as ex-cathedra is only for faith and morals not judgments. 

 

E

 

The only times I have seen such declaration is when the Church is pointing out the wrongs that one is doing. And that is the Job of the Church! To help all get to heaven. So when they say "If you don't believe this you cannot inherit eternal life.  Or one cannot be saved unless they believe this". 

 

​They are really saying that if you do not believe or follow X teaching or Continue to do Y. You offend God and in that offence you Condemn yourself. So follow/Believe or you are damned.

[CatholicCid]

Well, it comes down to what is covered by the power of the Keys and binding and loosing.  Ex cathedra pronouncements only include faith and morals not penalties and judgments. 

 

The keys only include authority/pre-eminence of bishop of Rome I believe. 

Binding and loosing only includes forgiveness of sins. 

 

None of the three cover penalties and judgments. 

 

That is my proposal, and I have not seen anything to the contrary.

 

E

 

What do you think infallible statements are? Must they be believed?

Edited February 14, 2014 by CatholicCid

[Luigi]

No, the Church has said things beyond "anathema", such as Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctum said if one does not accept the proposition included in the Papal Bull he cannot be saved. 

 

Also, who is the Church to say who is out of the Church?  I would also categorize this presumptuous verdict as again, outside the Church's jurisdiction of power of Keys and binding and loosing.  These cannot include saying who is outside the Church, only what is allowed and not allowed...no extra attachment clauses that say, "and if you don't do what we say and believe you are d a m n e d or outside the Church. 

 

E

In these cases, the Church is not actively "d a m n i n g" anyone to hell. To use your own terms, the Church is saying "you cannot be saved." But the person herself has put herself into that position. The Church has not turned any power or authority against the person - it's only stating what it understands as a result of theological reflection. 

 

And of course the Church has the authority to say who is out of the Church, the same way that the any group has the authority to say who is in the group and who is not - if you don't wear the uniform, you're not a Girl Scout; if you don't follow the Hippocratic oath, you can't practice medicine; if you won't play by the rules, the other kids kick you off the playground. Every church in history has declared who is in and who is out of it - and most non-Catholic Christian churches have a much harsher record of booting dissidents than the Catholic Church does. 

[Eliakim]

What do you think infallible statements are? Must they be believed?

 

Dogma, and yes they must be believed. 

 

In these cases, the Church is not actively "d a m n i n g" anyone to hell. To use your own terms, the Church is saying "you cannot be saved." But the person herself has put herself into that position. The Church has not turned any power or authority against the person - it's only stating what it understands as a result of theological reflection. 

 

And of course the Church has the authority to say who is out of the Church, the same way that the any group has the authority to say who is in the group and who is not - if you don't wear the uniform, you're not a Girl Scout; if you don't follow the Hippocratic oath, you can't practice medicine; if you won't play by the rules, the other kids kick you off the playground. Every church in history has declared who is in and who is out of it - and most non-Catholic Christian churches have a much harsher record of booting dissidents than the Catholic Church does. 

 

You can't compare getting kicked out of girlscouts with getting kicked out of the Church.  The Church is more mysterious and has an invisible component.  The R C Church can kick someone out of the visible communion but not the invisible Church. 

 

The key question is does the Church have the authority to kick people out of the invisible Church too based on power of Keys and binding and loosing? 

 

I don't think so, since these only give authority to define and lead the faith, never to kick someone out of the invisible communion/damn them.  And I don't buy they whole, "They damn themselves" copout.  The very question of them being damned in the first place is only because the R C C hierarchy attached these threatening punishments/verdicts after defining the faith.  It is this second part I take issue with.  

 

Does the power of keys and binding/loosing extend into giving the Church the authority to fix a verdict that one is damned if one does not believe something?  I argue at most it can only speculate.  But mere speculation is not what the medieval Church resorted to.  It aggressively said people are damned if they die in mortal sin. 

 

I say the Church can only define what mortal sin is and speculate (the eternal hell endstate of someone dying in mortal sin is not dogma) that one may go to hell if they die in it. 

 

E

[KnightofChrist]

There is only one Church, one body, there is not one that is visible and one that is invisible. The one true Church is both visible and invisible, but again only one body, only one head. If someone is excommunicated from the visible part they are also excommunicated from the invisible part. Christ rules the Church through Peter both visibly and invisibly.

 

 

[...] We must not think that He rules only in a hidden [59] or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, Venerable Brethren, that after He had ruled the "little flock" [60] Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded.

 

Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth.

 

After His glorious Ascension into Heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; [61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.

 

MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI - ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII

 

[Eliakim]

There is only one Church, one body, there is not one that is visible and one that is invisible. The one true Church is both visible and invisible, but again only one body, only one head. If someone is excommunicated from the visible part they are also excommunicated from the invisible part. Christ rules the Church through Peter both visibly and invisibly.

 

Not so even by official Church teaching.  Do you not think it is possible for men of the hierarchy to mistakenly declare someone to be outside the Church?  Think about what you are saying.   

 

Just as marriage annulment tribunals can err in declaring an annulment or a priest can err in being too lenient with confession, so too can the Church err in saying people are damned if they commit mortal sin. 

 

At most, the Church can only *believe* one is damned but this is does not carry the same weight or endorsement as the power of the keys and of binding and loosing.  These latter are real power that effect real results that Christ ratifies unless He vetoes a corrupt particular judgment I believe.