The pope can condemn a subject to hell (qualified).

 Consider this statement: some Catholic laymen and even apologists claim that it is only God who can judge who goes to hell–no pope can judge who goes to hell.

I think this has to be qualified. 

I agree with the statement insofar as it is ULTIMATELY ONLY in God’s power to judge who goes to hell. Whereas a pope only gets to judge who goes to hell as a participant because of the power given by God.

Now that the one sense where it is only within God’s power to judge who goes to hell is out of the way, I argue that there is another sense in which a pope can judge who goes to hell. Consider this anathematization formula according to Pope Zachary in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. Iii which says, “Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost…we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.”

Clearly, the power to judge who goes to hell is able to be exercised in anathematization by the pope.

Here are three ways to interpret that quotation above: 

  1. The pope is actually speaking non-infallibly. So, if it is actually the case that he is presumptuous in his judgment formula, then a Catholic could reject the formula as being a true formula for anathematization. 

  2. The pope is able to judge a subject to hell only through the power of God, not through his own power apart from God as suggested by, “Wherefore in the name of God…[etc.]” So the judgment is a judgment as decreed by God, not by the pope apart from God even though the pope is a means through which the judgment comes about. This is supported by Deuteronomy 1:16-17 which says, "...judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien that is with him...for the judgment is God’s"

  3. The judgment is a judgment of eternal fire on the subject based on the condition that the subject is obstinate against doing penance and satisfying the Church. But the subject is not bound by the anathematization when the subject does penance and satisfies the Church, as suggested by the words, “so long as he…do penance and satisfy the Church.” 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dr. Alexander Pruss's Blog called, "Sexual Orientation" against same-sex sexual relationships: Minh's commentary

  Consider the following two claims that some people seem to accept [so, for example, i guess that most secular college students would accept these 2 claims] : Same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be in a same-sex sexual relationship than opposite sex sexual relationship, and vice versa–no…rather, they are on par or equal to each other]. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be heterosexual than homosexual , or it’s not like it’s better to be homosexual than heterosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than homosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than heterosexual–no! Rather these three orientations are simply on par or equal] , and persons of one orientation do not have reason to try to change to another [so, if i’m a homosexual, i do not have reason to try to change to be heterosexual or bisexual, etc. because they are all on par to each other]...
Read more

Q: "Why does Paul mention James before Peter (Galatians 2:7-9) and why is Peters' name used as "Cephas" instead sometimes?"

  Firstly, if the hidden assumption behind the question here is, “Any name mentioned first in a list of names necessarily means that the person holding that name mentioned first is superior to all others in that list” then we should recognize that the assumption is not always true. Now, of course, Peter’s name is mentioned first when it comes to the listing of apostles, and that’s a case to be made for his superiority among the apostles. But, this type of conclusion is made with (1) the additional biblical and historical data that shows Peter was in fact the leader of the apostles, and (2) the fact that Peter is consistently mentioned first not only one time, but many times over and over, making it more likely. Second, I want to recognize that this is a good question, and we can actually see the logical pattern as to how Paul lists the four people (me [Paul], James and Cephas and John), as opposed to being merely random. But before that, it is important for us readers to recognize ...
Read more

Reflections on pridefulness versus humbleness.

 I just noticed recently that I am prideful. The pride that I have is implicit in my mind. This implicitness is why I am prideful. If I realized that I am prideful, I would have tried to stop my prideful actions or thoughts or words immediately. I did not give enough thought into how my actions are prideful. Perhaps they are not prideful actually, but just seem prideful from a third person perspective. People can find me to seemingly be prideful in anything I do so it is impossible to not seem prideful, but there exists a spectrum in which pride falls into. Pride can be seemingly miniscule or it can be absolutely puffed up. I would hope that a person who views me would at least seemingly assume that I am prideful in a miniscule manner as opposed to being absolutely puffed up.  The contrast to pridefulness is humbleness.  Humbleness does not always involve being quiet. For example, when a person asks me if I won my basketball game yesterday, it would not necessarily be hum...
Read more