Who decides the canons (rules ) in the Roman Catholic church?

[ihavefoundgod951]

Who decides Canon rules at councils in the Roman catholic church? How does the process work?

Do they get revolation from above or is it human.

For instance, who decided a sinner was not allowed to take communion if the person is devorced?

"He who is without sin cast the first stone " and all that lol



Who makes these rules, do they just make them up as they go along or is this revulation from above? Who by what Authority decides?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Who decides Canon rules at councils in the Roman catholic church? How does the process work?

Do they get revolation from above or is it human.

For instance, who decided a sinner was not allowed to take communion if the person is devorced?

"He who is without sin cast the first stone " and all that lol

Who makes these rules, do they just make them up as they go along or is this revulation from above? Who by what Authority decides?

Good questions. From my outside observation, this has been a gradually evolving process in the Catholic Church with a slow progression of accumulation of authority in the person of the Pope. A major step was taken in 1871 when it was determined that the Pope could pronounce dogma infallibly.

 

[com7fy8]

Who decides Canon rules at councils in the Roman catholic church? How does the process work?

I was told something like this > at a council, the council decides. They pray about a matter of concern, and they vote. If it is a matter of what is or is not infallible, I guess they require a larger majority, but I'm not sure they require a unanimous agreement. On other matters, maybe it's only a majority vote, or it is delegated to a specialized group with expertise to handle it.

Do they get revolation from above or is it human.

My opinion >

Official Roman Catholic authorities claim they have God's authority because their popes have an "apostolic succession" which goes back to the Apostle Peter. And so, they say, they can be guided by the Holy Spirit in doctrinal and moral matters and church policy. But only certain findings are considered to be infallible. Other items are felt to be reliable since the leaders have prayed, as specially trained and prepared and selected leaders, so they are able to receive God's input and guidance.

But > my opinion > about the "apostolic succession" > saying it's so does not make it so. Even if there were Roman Catholic leaders, all the way back to the time of Jesus, this does not necessarily mean that Jesus approved them. And the ones whom Jesus did approve could have been not well-known in the history reports. But ones seeking power could have gotten the attention and mention, and even could have kept the real leaders from being publicized much, if at all.

And, to my knowledge of what is right in the Bible > 1 Timothy 3:1-10 has very clear standards given by our Apostle Paul . . . for who is qualified just to be considered to be trusted to "take care of the church of God".

I understand that the obedient succession from Peter has, all along, been obeying these standards of our Apostle Paul. And you might look at the "First Epistle of Clement" which is claimed to be by a "Pope Clement". This message nowhere names any Clement, by the way. And this message includes standards and the process for determining who is worthy to be in the true succession of Christ's church. You can see for yourself if this is a match with how the Roman Catholic leadership has done things. I personally do not find that the Bible standards and the message of "First Epistle of Clement" are a match with how Roman Catholic leadership has done their selecting of pastors and higher leaders. And I do believe the true succession is unbroken and it is obedient, with only truly Christian men all along in this succession. And to me it seems that no big-name group has obeyed these standards, but God all along has succeeded in having His real leaders laboring for Him, whether they have been publicly recognized and ordained in some group or not.

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

I offer how an example is a person you know personally so you can feed on that leader's real-life example

For instance, who decided a sinner was not allowed to take communion if the person is devorced?

I think the pope can send out pastoral directives to different leaders and these get handed down to local priests.

"He who is without sin cast the first stone " and all that lol

But, also, Jesus said for the woman to stop the sinning.

Who makes these rules, do they just make them up as they go along or is this revulation from above? Who by what Authority decides?

It depends on who is in religious power, at the time. Properly, I understand, high-up Roman Catholic leaders are trusted to pray about things and then hand down their decisions and directives. But if ones are not Christians, then this can not work very well. It can be a do-it-yourself discipline and prayer thing, without Jesus. And only God can make us able to tell the difference between who He wants us to trust and who He does not approve. One of Jesus Christ's "sheep" can tell the difference between a true pastor and a wolf in sheep's clothing > John 10:1-30.

But, if media reports are reliable, there are numerous people who have had predators as their priests, but they did not know the difference. And the leaders who ordained those evil men either knew they were ordaining them . . . or they could not tell the difference between a predator and a person who is living and ministering God's own love. I will offer you > if you are a Christian . . . a sheep of Jesus > the Holy Spirit makes us able to "smell" the difference between someone who is a betrayer of children and a person who ministers the effect of God's own love to us. And you as a Christian, also, can spread the effect of God's own love in your prayer and your example and all you do in love.

So, with Jesus you can tell if someone is helping you become more real with God, and corrected to be loving any and all people, with hope for any evil person, at all . . . like Jesus on the cross had hope for any and all people. So, in case there are false people in the Roman Catholic hierarchy, we need to pray for them and have hope for them . . . not welcoming an excuse to look down on them. Do not let evil decide how we are and how we see people or where your attention goes > first, we need to evaluate our own selves, seeking our Heavenly Father's correction.

 

[ihavefoundgod951]

Thank you so much for your answers.

A sinner who has been devorced, wouldn't this person need communion more than most, if Jesus forgives, who is to judge?

Sinners need communion, to take this away is outrageous imo

In the dark ages when the Pope sent sinners to fight his holy war, telling them there sins would be forgiven if they fight.

the bible tells us he has no such authority, we are sinners saved by Grace, it is Jesus finished works on the cross that cleans us of sin (atonement )

Or the time they told christians they could buy salvation.

How can they tell anyone they can't take communion? Jesus told his followers "do this in remembrance of me"

How can they stop there members from partaking?

Blessings

 

[St Faustina]

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 other christian groups set their own regulations and processes and 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.

 

[Wgw]

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 other christian groups set their own regulations and processes and 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.

Our of curiosity, does Rome regard itself as bound by the canons of the ecumenical councils, for example, canons 1-20 of Nicea?

Also, I would note the Eastern Catholic Churches have a separate code of canon law.

 

[St Faustina]

Thank you so much for your answers.

A sinner who has been devorced, wouldn't this person need communion more than most, if Jesus forgives, who is to judge?

How do you know for sure that Jesus has forgiven this person? For Catholics all Mortal Sins must be confessed to a Priest who acts in the person of Christ, this authority was given to the Apostles by Christ himself (John 20:22-23) “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained.” You have to be truly repentant to be forgiven. Then you must do a penance before you receive absolution. Penance mends the broken relationship with God. When we sin we don't sin a vacuum, our sins affects ourselves, our families, our friends, our parish and the universal Body of Christ.

Leviticus 19:20-22 is also equally unequivocal:

If a man lies carnally with a woman… they shall not be put to death… But he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord… And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin which he has committed; and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him.

Apparently, a priest being used as God’s instrument of forgiveness did not somehow take away from the fact that it was God who did the forgiving. God was the first cause of the forgiveness; the priest was the secondary, or instrumental cause. Thus, God being the forgiver of sins in Isaiah 43:25 and Psalm 103:3 in no way eliminates the possibility of there being a ministerial priesthood established by God to communicate his forgiveness.

Sinners need communion, to take this away is outrageous imo

Communion doesn't take away sins. Confession in truly contrite state, penance and absolution takes away sins and mends the broken relationship with God. When you sin and continue committing the same sin, your relationship with God is broken, it's up to you to mend the sorry state of the relationship.

In the dark ages when the Pope sent sinners to fight his holy war, telling them there sins would be forgiven if they fight.

Not sure what this has to do with the original post but let' go there for arguments sake. Muslim armies were ransacking christian strongholds, murdering christians, priests, nuns and laypeople, they had taken Jerusalem. Christian pilgrims were being harrassed and attacked. It was a Holy War. There are Just Wars. The crusades were Just Wars.

The Crusades were born from the violent aggression of Islam, which had conquered ancient Christian territory in the Holy Land and North Africa and established a large foothold in Europe within a century of Muhammad’s death in the early seventh century. Particularly troublesome to Christian Europe was the conquering of Jerusalem in 638 by an Islamic force that sacked the city for three days and destroyed over 300 churches and monasteries.

Additional Christian territory was stolen by Islamic conquerors in the late eleventh century when the Seljuk Turks, a nomadic peoples from the Asian steppe who converted to Sunni Islam, invaded Anatolia (modern-day Turkey), a very important province of the Byzantine Empire. Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes (r. 1068-1071) gathered a mixed force of imperial troops and mercenaries in an attempt to stop the Seljuk advance, but they were defeated at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. Their victory allowed the Seljuks to consolidate their power in Anatolia, establishing it as the Sultanate of Rum with its capital in the ancient Christian city of Nicaea, site of the first ecumenical council in 325 and within striking distance of Constantinople.

And so, in the first place, the Crusades were launched to recover these conquered Christian territories and return them to the patrimony of Christ, which is one of the criteria for a legitimate exercise of violence.

the bible tells us he has no such authority, we are sinners saved by Grace, it is Jesus finished works on the cross that cleans us of sin (atonement )

The Bible says nothing. It cannot speak because it is an inanimate object. You cannot put the Bible on the witness stand and ask it what it meant in book, verse etc. The Bible's only worth lies in whether the person/s interpreting verses and formulating doctrine are indeed guided by the Holy Spirit AND possesses the authority to interpret. We believe the CC was the only church given that authority directly from Christ to St Peter the first Pope.

The Kings/Queens of Catholic countries such as Spain, England and France approached the Pope to provide military protection for christian pilgrims en-route to Jerusalem on foot and to discuss the muslim invasions. This led to confrontations with muslim marauders and escalated into war.

Or the time they told christians they could buy salvation.

You will have to elaborate or provide a source. Are you discussing indulgences?

How can they tell anyone they can't take communion? Jesus told his followers "do this in remembrance of me"

If a Catholic who got married in the Catholic Church got a divorce (civil requirement) and now wants to re-marry, they have to seek an annulment (CC requirement). Whether it is approved depends on the individuals involved. Was the marriage valid to begin with. In many cases the marriages were not valid (according to Canon Law) e.g. the wedding was not officiated by a Catholic Priest etc.

It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage. (CCC 2386)

In such cases, divorce is not sinful for that person and he or she may continue to receive Communion. However, in other cases—as with all serious sin—a divorced person should go to confession immediately, prior to receiving Communion. If a divorced person later remarries invalidly he or she would then be prohibited from receiving Communion as long as that situation persists or until he or she has gone to confession and committed to living chastely.

Blessings

 

[Meowzltov]

A sinner who has been devorced, wouldn't this person need communion more than most, if Jesus forgives, who is to judge?

Sinners need communion, to take this away is outrageous imo

In the dark ages when the Pope sent sinners to fight his holy war, telling them there sins would be forgiven if they fight.

The problem with sinners taking communion is that it is dangerous.
"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep." 1 Corinthians 11:30

The Pope promised an indulgence to the Crusaders. This was not forgiveness for sins -- that takes confession an repentance. Rather, it is the temporal suffering for sins that the Crusaders were concerned about. Whatever temporal suffering does not take place in this life, takes place in purgatory. An indulgence releases you of some of the temporal suffering. It has nothing whatsoever to do with getting you into heaven--if you are not already forgiven and going to heaven, an indulgence is completely worthless.

 

[Anthony1970]

The code of Canon law is being revised to allow divorced Catholics get annulments when they meet the requirements in a much speedier way.

 

[katholischen_miliz]

To make something doctrinal, the pope (of course inspired by the Holy Spirit) declares it. Or all the bishops could hold a council and infallibly declare doctrine while inspired.

 

[bbbbbbb]

To make something doctrinal, the pope (of course inspired by the Holy Spirit) declares it. Or all the bishops could hold a council and infallibly declare doctrine while inspired.

So, correct me if I am wrong, but the only way anyone knows that either the Pope or the council is inspired is because the Pope or the council tells folks they are inspired. If that is the case, I am King of the World, because I am inspired to tell you this.

 

[Hawkiz]

Thank you so much for your answers.

A sinner who has been devorced, wouldn't this person need communion more than most, if Jesus forgives, who is to judge?

Sinners need communion, to take this away is outrageous imo

In the dark ages when the Pope sent sinners to fight his holy war, telling them there sins would be forgiven if they fight.

the bible tells us he has no such authority, we are sinners saved by Grace, it is Jesus finished works on the cross that cleans us of sin (atonement )

Or the time they told christians they could buy salvation.

How can they tell anyone they can't take communion? Jesus told his followers "do this in remembrance of me"

How can they stop there members from partaking?

Blessings

It is noteworthy that simply being divorced does not bar anyone from receiving the Sacrament of Communion. Divorced and remarried without an annulment is what would place someone in a sinful (and continuous) state, and thus, as was properly stated, allowing them to partake would be irresponsible of the Church.

Peace in Christ

 

[katholischen_miliz]

So, correct me if I am wrong, but the only way anyone knows that either the Pope or the council is inspired is because the Pope or the council tells folks they are inspired. If that is the case, I am King of the World, because I am inspired to tell you this.

They must declare it from the seat of Peter. Infallibility is a doctrine that is found in scripture.

 

[Hawkiz]

They must declare it from the seat of Peter. Infallibility is a doctrine that is found in scripture.

Correct.
'He who hears you, hears me.' Luke 10:16. Jesus promised this authority to His disciples and their successors (as demonstrated in Acts 1:16-26).

'Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.' Matthew 18:18. Christ gave this authority (that was His alone to give, it wasn't 'stolen' by the disciples, but given) to the apostles and their successors.

So mock the concept of the authority if you must bbbbbbb, but it is not a concept that is from man.

Peace in Christ

Hawkiz

 

[katholischen_miliz]

Correct.
'He who hears you, hears me.' Luke 10:16. Jesus promised this authority to His disciples and their successors (as demonstrated in Acts 1:16-26).

'Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.' Matthew 18:18. Christ gave this authority (that was His alone to give, it wasn't 'stolen' by the disciples, but given) to the apostles and their successors.

So mock the concept of the authority if you must bbbbbbb, but it is not a concept that is from man.

Peace in Christ

Hawkiz

Thanks for supplying the scripture

 

[Meowzltov]

So, correct me if I am wrong, but the only way anyone knows that either the Pope or the council is inspired is because the Pope or the council tells folks they are inspired. If that is the case, I am King of the World, because I am inspired to tell you this.

If a Pope speaks Ex-Cathedra, what he says is inspired and infallible. If a Council is Ecumenical, same thing.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If a Pope speaks Ex-Cathedra, what he says is inspired and infallible. If a Council is Ecumenical, same thing.

And this is because the Pope says that when he speaks "ex-cathedra" what he says is inspired and infallible. There are, in actual fact, innumerable individuals throughout history who have claimed to speak infallibly for their deity(ies) and who expect people to believe them simply because they make that claim. The Pope is no different than these other folks, having no external authority to back up his claim, except perhaps, a contingent of his own adherents.

 

[Meowzltov]

And this is because the Pope says that when he speaks "ex-cathedra" what he says is inspired and infallible. There are, in actual fact, innumerable individuals throughout history who have claimed to speak infallibly for their deity(ies) and who expect people to believe them simply because they make that claim. The Pope is no different than these other folks, having no external authority to back up his claim, except perhaps, a contingent of his own adherents.

You could say the same thing about the Bible.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You could say the same thing about the Bible.

This is quite true with the major exception being that the Bible is a finished book and not considered by orthodox Christians to be open to further additions and refinements, unlike Catholic theology.

 

[Erose]

To make something doctrinal, the pope (of course inspired by the Holy Spirit) declares it. Or all the bishops could hold a council and infallibly declare doctrine while inspired.

This is not the case. The pope, nor a council has the authority to make doctrine. That was not given to them. Divine Revelation ended when the last Apostle died. There will be no more new doctrines.

The pope, ex cathedra, or the bishops in council in union with the pope, can declare doctrines as dogma, which means that these doctrines have been verified and are without a doubt true. This is usually done in cases were a specific doctrine is being challenged by heresy. Not always the case but normally it is.