Christian Forums and Message Board

Are the "priests" subject to God or is GOD subject to the "priests"?

 "And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priest and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse to give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it." -Liguori, «Duties and Dignities of the Priest», p.27

And what was it you said to me in another thread?

Context, context, context!

And here you are, plucking a sentence out of context. perhaps you should, listen to your own advice. A fuller extract is with your snippet highlkighted is:

With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering making sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of Changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it. "Such is," says St. Maximus of Turin, "this judiciary power ascribed to Peter that its decision carries with it the decision of God.", The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it, writes St. Peter Damian.' Hence St. John Chrysostom thus concludes: "The Sovereign Master of the universe only follows the servant by confirming in heaven all that the latter decides upon earth."

The Catechism put it more theologically:
1441 Only God forgives sins. 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." Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.[Jn 20:21-23]

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."[ 2Cor 5:18] The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God." ['2Cor 5:20]

Jesus gave the apostles (and hence their successors) his authority to forgive sins and he abides by their decisions made on his behalf.

"Indeed, it is greater even than the power of the virgin Mary. While the blessed virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man not once, but a thousand times." "The priest speaks and lo, Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command." He has the power to go to heaven and pull Christ down, and sacrifice him again on the altar of the church.".  - Faith of Millions APPROVED by the RCC and carrying the nihil obstat and imprimatur.

Anti-Catholic Protestant web sites are full of the sort of rubbish . You really ought to check out what the Catholic Church actually teaches not be so gullible as to swallow this nonsense.

The Catechism says this:
1352 The anaphora: with the Eucharistic Prayer - the prayer of thanksgiving and consecration - we come to the heart and summit of the celebration:
In the preface, the Church gives thanks to the Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, for all his works: creation, redemption, and sanctification. the whole community thus joins in the unending praise that the Church in heaven, the angels and all the saints, sing to the thrice-holy God.

1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).

At Mass, in the Eucharistic prayer II, the priests says:
You are indeed Holy, O Lord,
the fount of all holiness.
Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray,
by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall,
so that they may become for us
the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Nothing about going to heaven and pulling down Christ to sacrifice him on the altar again.

And what was it you said to me in another thread?

And here you are, plucking a sentence out of context. perhaps you should, listen to your own advice. A fuller extract is with your snippet highlkighted is:

With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering making sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of Changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it. "Such is," says St. Maximus of Turin, "this judiciary power ascribed to Peter that its decision carries with it the decision of God.", The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it, writes St. Peter Damian.' Hence St. John Chrysostom thus concludes: "The Sovereign Master of the universe only follows the servant by confirming in heaven all that the latter decides upon earth."


this dosnt alter the meaning of what i qouted.

The Catechism put it more theologically:
1441 Only God forgives sins. 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." Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.[Jn 20:21-23]

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."[ 2Cor 5:18] The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God." ['2Cor 5:20]

again, dosnt alter the quote

Jesus gave the apostles (and hence their successors) his authority to forgive sins and he abides by their decisions made on his behalf.

correct up until the first "and".

The Catholic bishops and priests were NOT promised the power from on high nor commanded to wait in Jerusalem to receive it (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,8). They have NO authority because they are not inspired of the Holy Spirit NOR are they eyewitnesses of Jesus (John 20:22-23; Acts 1:8, 21-26).They CANNOT  prove their authority by speaking in tongues, prophesying and working miracles (2 Cor. 12:12). They are NOT the chosen ambassadors who were selected to deliver God's message or "the faith" to mankind (Eph. 3:3-4; Jude 3). Moreover, they CANNOT be successors to the apostles and prophets because the ONLY infallible succession to them are the inspired writings (2 Pet. 1:15; 3:1; 2 Tim. 3:14-17).


Anti-Catholic Protestant web sites are full of the sort of rubbish . You really ought to check out what the Catholic Church actually teaches not be so gullible as to swallow this nonsense.

That does it! i am sick and tired ans offended by your use if the label "anti-catholic". either stop this or  will start labelling all YOUR catholic sources as "anti-Christian"

actually, i HAVE it with you. you have been too conditioned by your organisation to think outside the box.

God bless.

The Catechism says this:
1352 The anaphora: with the Eucharistic Prayer - the prayer of thanksgiving and consecration - we come to the heart and summit of the celebration:
In the preface, the Church gives thanks to the Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, for all his works: creation, redemption, and sanctification. the whole community thus joins in the unending praise that the Church in heaven, the angels and all the saints, sing to the thrice-holy God.

1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).

At Mass, in the Eucharistic prayer II, the priests says:
You are indeed Holy, O Lord,
the fount of all holiness.
Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray,
by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall,
so that they may become for us
the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Nothing about going to heaven and pulling down Christ to sacrifice him on the altar again.

You are missing the point. Or are you just avoiding it?

You gave a couple of quotes, not from authoritative sources, without the context, to try and show that the Catholic Church teaches something that it doesn't.

I gave you official Catholic teaching from authoritative sources, that shows your accusations are FALSE.

Perhaps you prefer lies to the truth.

I think it is you who is missing the point.
Both books quoted by Kiwi, bear the official approbation of the Catholic Church through Nihil Obstat  and The Imprimatur of the Catholic Church.

It is very simple.
Once a book has received The Imprimatur it is considered free from doctrinal error.
Nihil Obstat simply means "No Objection".

What you have here is the Catholic Church approving contradictory doctrines. One says "God is not obligated to anyone" and the other says "God is obligated to the priest".
Both are considered correct doctrine. It is a simple as it is.

Just to make sure you get this correct, this is what Imprimatur means:
If the bishop concurs that the work is free from doctrinal error, he grants an imprimatur. From the Latin imprimere, meaning to impress or to stamp an imprint, imprimatur translates, “let it be printed.”  Technically, this is the bishop’s official declaration that the book is free from doctrinal error and has been approved for publication by a censor.

exactly! some people are so brainwashed they cant see the forest for the trees. ( or is that supposed to be vice versa? )

thanks.

I think it is you who is missing the point.
Both books quoted by Kiwi, bear the official approbation of the Catholic Church through Nihil Obstat  and The Imprimatur of the Catholic Church.

It is very simple.
Once a book has received The Imprimatur it is considered free from doctrinal error.
Nihil Obstat simply means "No Objection".

What you have here is the Catholic Church approving contradictory doctrines. One says "God is not obligated to anyone" and the other says "God is obligated to the priest".
Both are considered correct doctrine. It is a simple as it is.

Just to make sure you get this correct, this is what Imprimatur means:
If the bishop concurs that the work is free from doctrinal error, he grants an imprimatur. From the Latin imprimere, meaning to impress or to stamp an imprint, imprimatur translates, “let it be printed.”  Technically, this is the bishop’s official declaration that the book is free from doctrinal error and has been approved for publication by a censor.

As I pointed out to you before:

AVZ,

You claim far too much for a nihil obstat and imprimatur.

In my understanding:
They do not say that the Vatican approves of the writing.
They do not say that the Catholic Church approves of the writing.
They do not say that the Bishop who gives the imprimatur approves of the writing.
They do not say this is what the Catholic Church promotes and teaches.

Take three statements X, Y & Z about some aspect of the Catholic Faith.

Writer A says these statements X, Y & Z are true.
Writer B says these statements X, Y & Z are false.

It is quite possible for the both pieces of writing to get an imprimatur from the same Bishop.

Many modern books contain a disclaimer such as this one:
The permission to publish is a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error. It is not implied that those who have granted the permission to publish agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed.

As fisheaters.com comments
Please know that the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church. It doesn't make the book the equivalent of an encyclical, say. It's not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it's not a stamp of infallibility. It doesn't even mean that everything in the book is accurate, only that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma. But, while occasionally a book sneaks through and its Imprimatur later recalled, this procedure is an important way for Catholics to increase their chances of staying error-free with regard to doctrine

Moreover the book by Liguori does NOT contain a Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur.

And we do not know whether the other book does or not. It is only claimed to have it but no details are given.

Even if it did that does not mean it is a an official document of the Catholic Church.

Moreover the book by Liguori does NOT contain a Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur.

See, all you need to do is check.

like here: http://www.catholictradition.org/Priests/priesthood1-2.htm
or here: https://www.scribd.com/document/40621985/Dignities-and-Duties-of-the-Priest3
or here: https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=69kPZE79wWMC&pg=PA479&lpg=PA479&dq=duties+and+dignities+of+the+priest+imprimatur&source=bl&ots=IiNhzUYQFs&sig=qsqplqmePkLEfHpbygSjx_wstok&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2s_imhZHZAhUeS48KHVzMA8wQ6AEISzAG#v=onepage&q=duties%20and%20dignities%20of%20the%20priest%20imprimatur&f=false

And once you have seen the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur notice, in your case, all that's left to do is deny it and pretend it never happened.

OK, but the edition I found doesn't contain an imprimatur or nihil obstat

https://archive.org/details/alphonsusworks12liguuoft

Perhaps that is because it is an early edition (1889) whereas your links are for a 1927 edition

Or perhaps it is because you didn't look good enough.
Fact is, the book has received the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.

If I found a copy why would I look for another one?

So what? It makes no difference to the point I made.

As I said, after being shown incorrect comes the denial fase

What denial?

The fact that there are two contradictory statements which according to the Catholic Church are both free from doctrinal error.
Both the statements "God is not obligated to anyone" and "God is obligated to the priest", even though they are mutually exclusive, are somehow true.

 He wrote "And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests" Who obliged God to do that? Jesus himself when he said to the apostles "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." There are no reservations in that. He didn't say I will have to approve your decision first. Therefore God obligates himself to accept the decision of the bishop or priest.

You are pertinently incorrect. A priest cannot forgive the sins of someone who does not repent and wishes forgiveness of his sins.
The simple fact is that if a person repents of his sins and asks for forgiveness, his sins are forgiven.
This does not need to be approved or decided or judged by a priest or bishop.

Jesus instructed the apostles that they could confirm Gods forgiveness to a believer.
Not even the apostles could go around and forgive people who did not want to be forgiven, or people who did not repented.
Neither could they withhold forgiveness from someone who repented and wished forgiveness.

God did NOT obligate Himself to something the apostles did, or a priest or bishop does.
Jesus told the disciples they could confirm the forgiveness to the believer.
The reality is that forgiveness has already taken place even before an apostle or priest or bishop can say or do anything.

On this issue the Catholic Church is utterly lost and mistaken.
The apostles, priests or bishops were never given the power to forgive sins, and under no circumstance can they put God under an obligation to do so.

[/i]That claim was not make. I wrote  "God obligates himself to accept the decision of the bishop or priest."
I believe that God fulfils his promises.

Lets put that to the test.

Q1) If a priest decides to forgive someone who does not repent, will God obligate Himself to forgive that person?
Q2) If a priest decides not to forgive someone who repents, will God obligate Himself to not forgive that person?

Q3) If a person repents and already asked God to forgive him and goes to church to ask the priest for forgiveness, and the priest is not around, will that person be forgiven?
Q4) What if a day later when the priest is around, and he asks the priest, and the priest says "no"...will God withdraw His forgiveness?

Test? No - just another attempted diversion.

The issue we were discussing was consistency

You claimed that KiwiChristian's quote from Liguori and my quote from the Catechism showed contradictory doctrines (reply #15)

I showed that they were not contradictory.

End of discussion.

Its exactly as I predicted.
"And once you have seen the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur notice, in your case, all that's left to do is deny it and pretend it never happened."

I haven't denied it.

I accept that the version of Liguori's book that you found had an imprimatur and nihil obstat

Do you accept that the version I found did NOT have a nihil obstat and Imprimatur?

Either way I have shown that what Liguori wrote was consistent with the quote from the Catechism that I gave.

They are not contradictory statement as you claimed.

I think you are the one in denial. Like KiwiChristian you are reluctant to give up a stick to bash the Catholic Church with even when it shown to be a rotten one.

Winsome,

You are trying to dilute the issue. I am not biting.
There is no such thing as "my version doesnt have nihil obstat and Imprimatur" and "your version hasn't".
When a book is written, it never has a nihil obstat or imprimatur immediately. The approbation always comes after it is written, and often even after it is printed for the first time.
This especially goes for historical documentation.
What you did was find a copy which was from before the nihil obstat and imprimatur. In your case a print from 1889
The nihil obstat and imprimatur was granted in 1927. So your "version" also bears the nihil obstat and imprimatur, as does the original manuscript from which the translations come.

You have not at all made a point for the claim made by Liguori.
Your derive your defense from John 20:21-23 and make a claim that a "power" to forgive sins was passed on to the apostles. A power to which God obligates Himself to honor.

Firstly the text never indicates a "power" was passed on.
Secondly your claim is not even logical.

I have given you various scenario's from which it becomes very clear that the intent of John 20 is not at all what you claim it is.
It is logically incoherent to claim that God can obligate Himself to honor a decision made by a human.
People make mistakes, God cannot make mistakes, hence God cannot obligate Himself to honor a mistake.

Hence the statements "God is not obligated to anyone" and "God is obligated to the priest" are contradictory and mutually exclusive.


I predicted "And once you have seen the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur notice, in your case, all that's left to do is deny it and pretend it never happened."
I was incorrect and incomplete. It should have been:
"And once you have seen the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur notice, in your case, all that's left to do is deny it, pretend it never happened and deflect by victimization."

You have been treated honorably in this thread, and no unreasonable attempts to insult your theology have been made.
There is no reason for you to victimize yourself and make this an issue of "Catholic bashing".
You are aware that Catholics are the only people on this board who turn a perfectly normal theological discussion into some form of religious discrimination?

You have followed the predicted pattern:
- Someone makes claim
- Your first argument is denial
- The claim is being elaborated on and your argument is being refuted
- You find yourself caught in an inconsistency, Your escape is to pretend the objections do not exist
- And the final prediction comes true when you turn around and claim the whole discussion is nothing but "Catholic bashing"

That us utter nonesense. The censor can only give a nihil obstat to what he examines. He does not know how accurate the translation is so he cannot approve an original in a foreign language that he has not examined. Nor is he examining another translation by a different person.

Code of Canon Law
Can. 829 The approval or permission to publish some work is valid for the original text but not for new editions or translations of the same.
 

That is such an incoherent statement.

First of all, Canon clearly states it only applies to NEW editions or translations.
Secondly, in case of translations, the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur can only be granted AFTER verification that the translation is correct.
Thirdly, Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur CANNOT be granted on an incorrect translation. An incorrect translation will automatically trigger an Obstat or objection.
Fourthly, it is impossible for an original text to be objected, whilst a correct translation of that same original text receives Nihil Obstat.

Hence, if the correct translation is considered Nihil Obstat, and if it is granted the Imprimatur, then the original text...which is nothing but the same text but only in a different language...is therefore also considered Nihil Obstat.

Logic, no?