In the sacrament of penance, whom does the priest represent?

In the sacrament of penance, whom does the priest represent?

Full Question

In the sacrament of penance, whom does the priest represent?

Answer

In the sacrament of penance, also referred to as reconciliation or confession, the priest represents Christ and the Church. “In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church” (CCC 1444).

Answered by: Jan Wakelin

If a sinner goes to hell for one unrepented mortal sin, does God purge his love? Love cannot exist in hell.

If a sinner goes to hell for one unrepented mortal sin, does God purge his love? Love cannot exist in hell.

Full Question

In Luke 16:19–31 about the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, I've read that the rich man, when he called to Abraham, was in purgatory, not hell. The reason given is that the rich man demonstrates love and concern for his brothers and requests Abraham to help them by sending Lazarus to teach them the error of their ways. Since love and concern for others cannot exist in hell, the rich man must be in another place. My question is that if one unrepented mortal sin, such as adultery, will cause someone to go to hell, what happens to the love that such a person had for his children, friends, and spouse? Does God purge this love from this person before he is put in hell?

Answer

To say that the rich man must have been in purgatory because love cannot exist in hell is a conclusion based on an unsupportable premise. The Church does not teach that those in hell are bereft of all kinds of love. It is true that supernatural love of God cannot exist in hell, but a disordered love is involved in every mortal sin, and this perverse loving will remain.

What may appear as the rich man’s love and concern for his brothers may in fact be nothing more than self-interest. Thomas Aquinas asserted that the rich man knew that if his kin were damned his own suffering would increase. “[The damned’s] punishment would be greater if all their kindred were damned, and others saved, than if some of their kindred were saved. For this reason the rich man prayed that his brethren might be warded from damnation: for he knew that some are guarded therefrom” (ST Supp.–III:98:4 ad 1).

Also according to Aquinas, the damned are consumed with envy for those who attain glory, even for their own kin, though perhaps to a lesser degree.

God does not purge people of all types of love before they enter hell, but in hell the separation from God and his divine love is accomplished forever, making supernatural love, or charity, impossible. Love of evil, however, remains.

Answered by: Jan Wakelin of Catholic Answers

Would I be committing a mortal sin if I believed an act to be gravely wrong - even if it were not - and did it anyway?

Would I be committing a mortal sin if I believed an act to be gravely wrong - even if it were not - and did it anyway?

Full Question

If you think that something is a mortal sin (even though it is only venial), and you go ahead and commit the sin, understanding that when you commit a mortal sin you would be cutting yourself off from sanctifying grace and greatly offending God, are you committing a mortal sin?

Answer

In this case, the venial sin becomes mortal because a person ignores his conscience and commits a sin that violates his conscience in a grave way.

Under the heading “Erroneous Judgment,” the Catechism states, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed” (1790).

When writing to the Romans, Paul speaks of a delicate pastoral situation in the first-century Church. There were many Jewish Christians who still believed that certain foods were unclean or otherwise forbidden (e.g., much of the meat sold in Gentile markets had been sacrificed to idols). Paul explained that none of these foods were really unclean or forbidden, but stressed that his readers should not do things that would tempt people into eating these foods if it would violate their consciences:

Then let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean. If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died. (Rom 14:13–15)

The mortal consequences of sinning in this way are clear. Paul speaks of an individual being “destroyed” by violating his conscience in this way: “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for any one to make others fall by what he eats” (Rom 14:20). “But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from belief [i.e., in accord with his beliefs or conscience]; for whatever does not proceed from belief is sin” (Rom 14:23).

In the end, when all is said and done, we will stand alone before the judgment seat of God and “Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace”(CCC 682).

Answered by:  Peggy Frye of Catholic Answers

Does God promise us happiness?

Does God promise us happiness?

Full Question

I have a friend that says God does not promise us happiness. But I have read in Psalm 41:1–4 that God makes us happy when we are concerned for the poor. Can we claim this as a promise if we take care of the poor?

Answer

There are a couple of things to be said here. First, Psalm 41:1-4 expresses in general terms how God deals with those who care for the poor. It does not translate into a specific promise to a specific individual.

For example, verse 4 says that God will sustain them on their sickbed and heal them of their illnesses. This may be how God operates in general, but it does not mean that an individual who has cared for the poor has a specific promise that he in particular will be healed of a particular illness. After all, we all die sometime, and if we had an automatic guarantee of healing in exchange for giving to the poor, medical science and human life spans would be quite different than they are.

Second, broadly speaking, we might speak of two general sorts of happiness—material and spiritual. Material happiness is what we receive from material good fortune—health, prosperity, etc. Spiritual happiness is what we receive from spiritual good fortune—grace and forgiveness, performing works of mercy, and in the next life attaining the beatific vision of God.

When people say that God has not promised us happiness, they usually mean that God has not promised us material happiness in this life. In this life we may have to undergo suffering, even great suffering. But God has promised spiritual happiness, especially in the next life, to all who follow him.

It would seem that when your friend said that God does not promise us happiness, he was referring to the material happiness. And in that regard he is right. God has, however, promised you spiritual happiness for doing this since it is a corporal work of mercy when done out of love for God. While you can’t translate Psalm 41:1–4 into a promise of material happiness to you personally, you can know that in general God does increase the material happiness of those who care for the needs of the poor.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Where does the Church's authority to change canon law come from?

Where does the Church's authority to change canon law come from?

Full Question

I understand the Code of Canon Law is a list of 2,000-plus laws of the Church. Are these laws subject to change over time? If so, where does the Church get the authority to change them?

Answer

The current Code of Canon Law (1983 ed.), released by Pope John Paul II, has 1,752 canons. The former canon (1917) was the one with over 2,000 canons (2,414, to be precise). These canons are rules related to the governance of the Church, and they are now divided into seven headings: general norms, the people of God, teaching mission of the Church, sanctifying mission of the Church, temporal goods of the Church, penal law, and procedural law.

Many of these laws are subject to change over time as the Church sees fit, while others are not. For example, the discipline of women wearing a veil at Mass was not retained in the newer code, and so the practice is not required. However, others things in the code, such as the doctrine expressed in canon 900 §1 (1983), cannot be changed over time. This canon states the doctrine that only a validly ordained priest can confect the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Like any other social and visible structure, the Church has norms to order the functions that have been entrusted to it. Just as the citizens of the state are to obey the speed limit, and a son is to listen to his mother’s rules, canon law is to be observed by members of the Church—which is both the kingdom and the family of God.

The Church gets her authority from Jesus to make these laws. He told the leaders of his Church, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:19, 18:18).

This language of “binding and loosing” was a Jewish phrase that was that meant forbidding and permitting. This pertained to the ability of scribes and Pharisees to establish rules of conduct for the faith community, and the good Jew was called by Christ to obey them (Matt. 23:3).

Since Jesus gave this authority to the leaders of his Church, they have authority to do such things as establish feast days and lay down laws for the good of the community.

Answered by:  Jason Evert of Catholic Answers

How can you say the Watch Tower Society is a false religion for changing its doctrines if the Catholic Church has also done so?

How can you say the Watch Tower Society is a false religion for changing its doctrines if the Catholic Church has also done so?

Full Question

Catholics claim that the Jehovah's Witnesses are following a false religion because of changes the Watch Tower Society has made in its doctrines. Such refinements are nothing more than the Society moving closer to a proper understanding of Bible prophecies, as Proverbs 4:18 states. Besides, the Catholic Church itself has changed doctrines, but you would not label it a false religion, would you?

Answer

Let’s be quite clear on a few matters. First, the Catholic Church has never changed any defined doctrine or anything else that is part of the deposit of faith. Disciplinary matters—such as priestly celibacy and abstaining from meat on Fridays in Lent—can and do change, but these items are not part of the deposit of faith. The Church may change or dispense with these matters as it sees fit.

For changes in Catholic teaching to be grounds for accusations of false religion, those changes necessarily would have to involve a contradiction between two infallibly defined propositions. This simply has not happened in the Church’s entire history, just as Christ promised (Mt 16:18).

Now, in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation Bible, Proverbs 4:18 reads, “But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established.”

A close look at the preceding verses shows that the passage is contrasting righteous people with wicked people. The “path” in this context refers to their respective lifestyles or life situations, not to the development of doctrine as the Watch Tower Society (WTS) would have us believe.

The “bright light” represents the righteous person becoming increasingly obedient to God’s commands and living a virtuous life. There is no warrant whatsoever for claiming this passage deals with an increased understanding of Bible prophecies.

Second, what the WTS calls “refinements” or “adjustments” are in actuality instances of it having made false predictions or having taught false interpretations of Bible passages. When this fact comes to light (no pun intended), the WTS scrambles to disguise these blunders, alleging that its understanding was not fully developed and thus needed an “increase of light.”

In other words, when the WTS changes a doctrine (by reversal, flip-flop, or outright elimination) or when it wants to slough off a false prophecy, it asserts that “new light” has been received and has enabled it to better “understand” a teaching or prophecy. The former teaching (“old light”) is then discarded, and the “new light,” which is called a “refinement,” supposedly brings the WTS to a fuller understanding of the prophecy or teaching in question.

In the case of the WTS, however, we do see current teachings contradicting earlier teachings and doctrines going back and forth between opposite interpretations. This is not maturation but mutation.

Answered by Jason Evert of Catholic Answers

How do we refute those who say only the Bible's authority is infallible?

How do we refute those who say only the Bible's authority is infallible?

Full Question

Catholic apologists are doing a fine job refuting those who have a “no authority but the Bible” understanding of sola scriptura. But I am encountering people who say, “I admit the Church and the early Fathers have real authority, but not infallible authority, which is something only the Bible has.” This understanding sounds more formidable. If we argue against just the first understanding then we look like we are attacking a straw man. What do you recommend?

Answer

Let's call the first view sola-1 and the second sola-2. I don’t know how others handle this, but whenever I discuss sola scriptura, I try to throw in a qualifying adjective like decisive or binding to cover the “sola-2” view. Thus, I’ll say that sola scriptura is the view that “nothing besides Scripture has binding or decisive authority.” This makes it clear that it is the sola-2 view I’m talking about and avoids the charge of attacking a straw man.

Frankly, though, there is little difference between the arguments that succeed against sola-1 and sola-2. Advocates of sola-2 may sound at first like they have a more formidable view, and they often claim that they have a more “historic” view, but on the level of argument, all that is just packaging.

This becomes clear when one asks what kind of authority the church or the Fathers are supposed to have. It clearly isn’t binding or decisive authority. At most, in the Protestant view the teachings of Protestant churches and the Fathers could suggest beliefs and interpretations to one, but never bind one to believe them. Only the Bible can do that. Some Protestants might even go so far as to say that we owe church leaders, confessions, and Fathers some kind of deferential preferment, but they ultimately cannot tell one what to believe.

As long as that is the case, sola-2 is in agreement with sola-1 in placing church leaders, confessions, and Fathers on the same plane as commentaries, Bible dictionaries, and other study tools. They are things that can suggest but not require belief. The writings of Augustine may (or may not) be considered more prestigious as study tools than Unger’s Bible Handbook, but that’s all they are for Protestants: study tools. You are still left to make up your own mind on every point of theology.

As a result, the same arguments that work against sola-1 generally disprove sola-2 as well. Some Protestant apologists may try to dress up their sola scriptura in new clothes so they can boast of being more “historic” and start throwing around charges of straw men. But ultimately it’s the same thing, and the same arguments work against it.

Answered by Jason Evert of Catholic Answers