The 1917 Code of Canon Law can. 2214 §1 states: >The Church has the native and proper right, independent of any human authority, to coerce those offenders subject to her with both spiritual and temporal penalties. This says "The Church", but §2 goes on to specify "Bishops and other Ordinaries". A bishop, when consecrated, is given the power to teach, govern, and sanctify those in his diocese; but what authority does a simple parish priest have over his parishioners? In other words, what can a parish priest command or forbid his parishioners to do? Can he coerce his parishioners with punishments, or is this power only reserved to bishops?

I've seen the following quote attributed to St. John Chrysostom : >The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path. Where did he say this?

What is the biblical basis for in the catholic theology of a priest being "*in persona christi*"? The idea that only a Priest can conduct the New Testament Passover meal that Christ told us to "do in remembrance of Him" was for all believers surely? Why is it that in Catholicism the Priest is essentially "*in persona Christi*" and is therefore the only way for a "valid" communion meal? Where in the Bible is the justification for a Priest being *in persona Christi*? (an emphasis especially on the Eucharistic sacrament please, but also interested in the theology as a whole). Thank you.

It seems that in order to become a Catholic priest you have to either already be part of a religious order or commit to serving a certain bishop. Can anyone become a priest without a lifelong commitment of this sort? I know that diocesan priests can join religious orders, but I assume they wouldn't want you to intentionally do that.

The priest acts as a judge in the confessional. Civil judges must recuse themselves if they think they cannot judge a case fairly (because, e.g., they have conflicting interests, lack the requisite knowledge to judge a particular case correctly, etc.). Must a priest, who otherwise has faculties to hear confessions, recuse himself if he cannot judge a penitent's sins impartially? I am not asking if a priest can deny someone absolution or refuse to hear confession (because, e.g., of improper time and place). My question is more along the lines of 1983 CIC 977 , but not restricted to cases that involve sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments.

I was said that some pope of last centuries wrote a document where he stated this idea: "A priest can say three heresies in a sermon but must not insist on them." I have a suspicion that I have seen that somewhere, but I cannot remember now where it was? Can you help my poor memory? :-) Thanks

I was wondering in which religious order did Viganò got ordained as a priest (is he Franciscan, Jesuit, Dominican)?

Was Jesus The Lamb of God or the High Priest (whom offers the lamb as a sacriffice)? John the baptist said " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" John 1:19 And in Hebrews 4:14 it is written "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God".

Should the Altar in a Catholic Church be reconsecrated after a jr high boy, under the direction of his teacher and sanctioned by the priest, lay on top of the Altar while practicing The Stations of The Cross? I was horrified when the priest told be it was a beautiful thing to see for The Stations.

Many Protestants object to the practice of addressing priests as "Father," citing Matthew 23:9. > And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Is there a respectful way for someone who is not Catholic to address a priest other than calling him "Father"?

Wikipedia explains the etymology of the word Pope as follows: > The word pope is derived ultimately from the Greek πάππας > (páppas) originally an affectionate term meaning "father", later > referring to a bishop or patriarch. The earliest record of the use > of this title is in regard to the Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope > Heraclas of Alexandria (232–248) in a letter written by his > successor, Pope Dionysius of Alexandria, to Philemon, a Roman > presbyter: > > τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον. > > Which translates into: > > I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed father/pope, Heraclas. > > From the early 3rd century the title was applied generically to all > bishops. The earliest extant record of the word papa being used > in reference to a Bishop of Rome dates to late 3rd century, when it > was applied to Pope Marcellinus. Eventually the term Pope/Papa was limited to the Bishop of Rome alone and now, in the Roman Catholic church, the term 'Father' is usually used to address priests: > In the early church, members of the clergy generally did not have standard titles. However, an accepted way to address bishops was “papa” or “pappa,” which referred to the role of the bishops as father figures. This name eventually became associated solely with the Bishop of Rome. The highest title in the Catholic Church, that of “Pope,” is derived from those early titles. By the late Middle Ages, priests belonging to various religious orders were called father. This practice has persisted to modern times, as priests are customarily called father today. - Mercy Home Regardless of whether papa/father is used to refer to the Pope or Bishops or local Priests the idea underneath seems to be a reference to spiritual and familial paternity based ultimately upon the notion that Adam was created to be both High Priest and Father of all humanity: > Adam is the father of the human race, as well as the high priest of humanity. Thus, there is an intimate link between priesthood and fatherhood. The priesthood leading up to Aaron and the Levites is a familial priesthood. What is important to understand during this period of salvation history is that the father of the family is a priest, and the prominence of the first-born son in the family. - Catholic News Agency In Matthew chapter 9 Jesus is speaking to the crowd and the disciples and He is talking about the Scribes and Pharisees, that is to say the religious teachers and leaders. What he tells everyone is: > But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. - Matthew 23:8-10 1) Don't allow anyone to call you teacher/guide or Master because Christ is in that role and you are all brothers/equal under Him. 2) Don't call anyone on earth your Father because only God fills that role The prohibition appears to be twofold: One is against accepting the designations of teacher or master over another and the second is against assigning the designation of Father to anyone. It should be obvious that these prohibitions are expected to be understood 'spiritually' both from the immediate context and the Bible as a whole (since Jesus has made clear that, spiritually, there are only two fatherhoods : God or the Devil) as well as from common sense ... we all have natural fathers as well as secular teachers, mentors, and bosses. Taking the Matthew passage at face value there is no clear prohibition against a priest, for example, accepting the designation (spiritual) 'Father' but there is clear prohibition against anyone actually assigning that designation to 'any man on earth'. A highly voted answer to this strongly related question indicates a Catholic view that Jesus was prohibiting the term 'Father' being applied to those who are undeserving of the term: > Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. [...] To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it. With this understanding in mind coupled with the fact that priests in the Catholic Church seem to be called 'Father' by custom rather than according to whether they deserve the title (that is to say, a priest who does not have the heart of a shepherd nor the well-being of his flock as priority will still, by custom, be called 'Father'), how does the Catholic Church interpret Matthew 23:9 so as to normalize priests being called Father irregardless of their performance?

Does the Catholic Church have any *explicit* laws regarding priests and the ownership of or the carrying of firearms? I am under the impression that Canon Law (someplace) forbids for all clerics from anything "unbecoming to their state." But alas, if this is true, such is by no means explicit.

Who first used the term *alter Christus* ("another Christ") to describe an ordained (ministerial ) priest?

Can priests be on capital punishment juries, or is this interdicted as an irregularity by canon law?

In St. Alphonsus Liguori's *Dignity and Duties of the Priest,* it is written: > Empty words and sounding periods are, says St. Francis de Sales, the pest of sermons. (*De la Predic.* ch. 5, a. I.) First, because God does not cooperate with vain preaching.... Does anyone know what St. Francis may have meant by the expression, "sounding periods"? Also, what is the referenced work, *de la Predic.*?

According to Catholicism, is divine chastisement due especially to the sins of priests?

What are some examples of canonized saints either 1. educating or disciplining women over insubordination in church matters where a priest or bishop would be expected to be in charge or 2. not tolerating disrespect to the clerical offices?

I am under the impression that a Roman Catholic parish priest must visit the households of his parish on an annual basis. But is this done anymore? I am sure it has been promulgated somewhere and at some time in the past. Can anyone provide any light on this? Thank you.

The *Civil Constitution of the Clergy* was a law passed during the French Revolution which attempted to make subordinate the Catholic Church in France to the French government. Among other things, it required that Catholic priests and bishops be elected locally (which included non-Catholics) in an attempt to abolish the authority of the Pope to appoint clergy in France. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Constitution_of_the_Clergy , *The Pope condemned those who took the oath and went as far as saying that they were absolutely separated from the church.* citation , but no page(s) indicated. QUESTION: Where (papal encyclical, I presume) may I find Pope Pius VI's aforementioned condemnation of those clergy who took the oath required by the *Civic Constitution of the Clergy?*

This question is motivated by one of the answers given [here](https://law.stackexchange.com/a/93770/24981) for the question [Is religious confession legally privileged](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/93765/is-religious-confession-legally-privileged) . I am under the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that if a Catholic priest reveals anything that was told to him during Sacramental Confession---he is automatically excommunicated by the Church. QUESTION: If the penitent involved gives permission for that priest to reveal something from his confession, may the priest do so without ecclesiastical penalty? Or is he still bound to reveal nothing?